Neocons welcome?

[Liberty Star]

Good read.

March 02, 2004, 11:34 a.m.

Israel Frenzy
Neocons in the middle.



It is being claimed, ever more widely, that neocon policies are determined by the advantages they bring, manifest or putative, to the State of Israel. Patrick Buchanan, in the current American Conservative, believes this ardently, while the most quoted advocates of neocon militancy, Richard Perle and David Frum, go further than merely to deny that neoconservatism is an Israel First world view. They insist that criticism of neocon policies is, at heart, anti-Semitic.


Richard Perle, co-author with Frum of The End of Evil, old acquaintances remember as being for many years on the public scene as an adamant opponent of Soviet wiles and analyst of the perils of complacent coexistence. Perle's specialty was national defense, and he was there year after year to point out, for instance, that the disarmament fetishists played into the hands of Soviet opportunists. If we unilaterally stopped testing nuclear weapons, we risked Soviet technical advantage. If we stopped deploying theater weapons in Europe, we were threatened by the Soviets' development of their SS-20 missiles and the corresponding advantages in leverage over Western Europe.

It is reasonable to say that Perle's focus on the Communist threat was central to his devising of corollary policies. It is charged now, by e.g. Buchanan, that that focus is now on Israel. That Perle and co-author David Frum rise in the morning with a map of Israel in front of them and decide what ideas, people, countries to encourage, which to discourage, based on their bearing on Israel.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200403021134.asp

 

[garrettwombat]

LIPO watch all these videos please, all your questions will be answered:

Monetary

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8-W-ef7GmT4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s

the war

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UvEil9LukKk

Police State

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9TZBe8npC0A
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zJrtUpptYGE


Random video's

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=klSek88t54w


and be sure you watch the infomercials
P1. http://youtube.com/watch?v=uQNWHmiGj-k
P2.http://youtube.com/watch?v=wekzQrQfacg&feature=user

 

[nist7]

Ronald Reagan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y46xgPUokrg


The troops, through their donations, have shown that they support Ron Paul more than any other GOP candidate.

Ronald Reagan also had a few words to say about Ron Paul.

There’s a reason why our nation’s finest, America’s military men and women, both active and veteran, have given more donations to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul than any other candidate in either party. As a veteran, he’s the only candidate who understands how to properly defend America from its enemies, “both foreign and domestic.” His strict adherence to the Constitution and reliance on true conservative principles is the winning formula for defeating terrorism abroad.


...


No wonder Ronald Reagan had this to say about Congressman Ron Paul: “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”

....

http://www.politicallore.com/?p=99

 

[DavyDuke17]

People here should try to be more open minded when discussing other views, or we will never pull enough people in to the campaign. If someone disagrees with one of Ron Paul's position, you do not tell them that they are wrong or call them ignorant, but rather that you disagree and state your opinion and facts to back it up.

Also, not everybody that disagrees with Ron Paul and takes a neo-conservative approach to say, foreign policy, has been brainwashed by mass media. To say so without knowing the person is very condescending.

I think we all believe that we have the facts and logic behind us to win any argument that remains solely about the issue. Therefore, there is no reason to put down or add emotion to a discussion that will leave the other person closed-minded and put off. For the same reason, we should remain open minded and not become bogged down with the very hubris that is plaguing our country.

Welcome Lipo, I agree with you that Ron Paul is the very best option to restore our government to its constitutional levels. Hopefully you are concerned enough about our constitution to share Paul's message with your friends and family. Maybe some time we can discuss some of the other issues that you disagree with. There are other forums that are dedicated for issues only, and if you bring your ideas up in a civil manner I am sure we can get a healthy debate going.

 

[literatim]

Lipo, we are in a serious situation economically. I compare it to someone living off of credit cards, paying each credit card bill with another credit card. They can live a good life until it implodes. We are over $9 trillion in debt, $1 trillion of it held by China, another $500 billion of it held by Saudi Arabia. We have over $40 trillion in current 'obligations' to the American people in form of welfare programs: Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. We are spending almost $1 trillion a year in overseas military expenditures.

Our dollar is rapidly declining because they have no other source of money other than print it. It is now worth less than the Canadian dollar. We borrow more money to pay the interest we owe on all that debt which increases our debt further. Every dime you pay into Income Tax goes to pay interest on our debt.

 

[Lipo]

its not that im against you being here lipo, but don't bring any negative attention to our fundraising or the cause of getting the good Dr. elected.....

other than that, welcome

Let the chips fall where they may. I've still not decided for any candidate - though I have contributed to both John McCain and Fred Thompson campaigns. Frankly, all the Republican candidates (with the possible exception of Huckabee) look pretty good to me. Each are good for sometimes different reasons.

I'm still kicking the tires as it were. My initial top three candidates were: Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson and Tom Tancredo. With Hunter and Tancredo out, Ron Paul deserved another look.

I kinda like John McCain but would be just as happy with Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani.

 

[isufferfromronpaulfever]

Let the chips fall where they may. I've still not decided for any candidate - though I have contributed to both John McCain and Fred Thompson campaigns. Frankly, all the Republican candidates (with the possible exception of Huckabee) look pretty good to me. Each are good for sometimes different reasons.

I'm still kicking the tires as it were. My initial top three candidates were: Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson and Tom Tancredo. With Hunter and Tancredo out, Ron Paul deserved another look.

I kinda like John McCain but would be just as happy with Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani.

Lipo... welcome. Do you acknowledge a media blackout of Ron Paul and if so, what is your take on it?

 

[me3]

Yes, Ron Paul is really anti-semitic. He reveres Mises and Rothbard, two Jewish economists.

Supporting the war doesn't make someone a neocon, being uninformed, or easily persuaded by stereotypes is.

 

[literatim]

Yes, Ron Paul is really anti-semitic. He reveres Mises and Rothbard, two Jewish economists.

You forgot Ayn Rand who he named his son Rand after.

 

[Dave Wood]

I was a closet Tancredo supporter:o Really sorry to see him go. The rest of them havent earned my trust and I think that is exactly the reason I am part of Pauls camp. I simply trust the man to make the right decisions.

 

[literatim]

I liked Tancredo minus the war issue, but his endorsement of Romney made me question any respect I had for him.

Anyway, as far as whether Lipo is welcome or not. We welcome anyone, even those that don't support Ron Paul.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Welcome aboard!

Here you will find all types of people. The growing support for Ron Paul I believe has more to do with his personal integrity, clarity, and stance against big government. Americans are sick and tired of politicians lying to us. Americans are sick and tired of the TV lying to us and telling us who to vote for. Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired, and for Once we have someone running for President who has moral fiber and true character. Help spread the word!

 

[amy31416]

Dr. Paul's open association with anti-semitism and racism is particularly offensive.


Question: Will Ron Paul accept me as a supporter? Would he mind if I openly advocate my point of view on this forum, even as diametrically opposed (with one exception) as it is to his own?

The "open association" with anti-semitism and racism is false. He got a donation from a white supremacist, refused to return it on ethical grounds. End of story. See this video and tell me if he's a racist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i97Ia1xMyBo

And the answer as to whether or not RP would accept you as a supporter-- of course he would. He doesn't screen anyone as to their beliefs, nor does he judge you. You are the judge of yourself so long as you don't hurt anyone else or destroy their property.

That being said, his supporters here will probably bash you somewhat while others will welcome you, we are not all as steadfast, but we are learning.

 

[EvoPro]

On Iraq, my take is the same as Andrew Napolitano's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWThTWBZqBg). "We can not thrust democracy on these people. The best we can hope for is a stable government."

I wish Ron would use this statement. I agree with him on practically everything, but I don't always agree with how he presents his stance. I believe and I know Ron believes that Iraq will stabilize if we give them their country back.

It is ridicules to think we need to be interventionists. We should only fight when necessary. No one would dare attack Israel, because they know that the US congress would declare war and we would fight and win decisively.

Intervention in today's world makes us less safe not only because it stirs the pot, but also because it makes us far less prosperous.


Dr. Paul's quote on Beck's show was great:

"You know, we stood down the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. We had Khrushchev pounding on the desk saying we will bury you. He was capable of doing it.

The al Qaeda does not have an army, they don`t have a Navy, they don`t have intercontinental ballistic missiles, they don`t have weapons of mass destruction, they don`t have a country. They`re very, very weak people in that sense. But they have determination. The determination comes from being provoked. And they have to have some reason to galvanize enough hatred to come here and do what they have done.

So, no, it`s not going to be -- if I bring the troops home overnight, it`s not going to eliminate what has been going on for quite a few decades. But I`ll tell you what, it`s going it be a lot better. And if we think that they only come here because we`re free and prosperous, we will never solve this problem."

We are going to be under threat because if we -- Let`s say the fighting quits in Iraq and we keep those 14 bases and an embassy as big as the Vatican and think that won`t annoy people? It will be a thorn in their side and we will be under as much threat. We are an easy target over there and they`re quite satisfied for killing Americans in Iraq. But if we`re no longer an easy target, they`ll come back here. That is what my fear is."

 

[thisisgiparti]

As an avowed supporter of the War in Iraq and a friend of Israel, I seem to closely resemble the stereotype of "neocon" as I've seen it defined on these forums. I support George W. Bush, the Federal Reserve and its monetary policy, see no good reason to return to the gold standard, and regard Iran as an existential threat not simply to Israel but to the the United States and Europe.

I think foreign interventionism as a means of maintaining regional and global stability is desireable. Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein was an entirely good thing. The US economy is not going to collapse and is in fact, wealthier and more productive than it has ever been before.

Dr. Paul's open association with anti-semitism and racism is particularly offensive.

I appear to stand in direct opposition to nearly every single foreign policy and economic policy proscription Dr. Ron Paul offers as part of his candidacy for President of the United States, save one.

I appreciate, support and admire Dr. Ron Paul's veneration of the US Constitution and of his desire that the US government closely and accurately abide by it.

Question: Will Ron Paul accept me as a supporter? Would he mind if I openly advocate my point of view on this forum, even as diametrically opposed (with one exception) as it is to his own?

Most Ron Paul supporters like Israel and Jews. Ron Paul has a very good endorsement from Ha'aretz that ran on November 7, 2007. Lew Rockwell's blog also gave some good accounts of Ron Paul's history of championing Israel's cause especially when Israel went after the Osirak reactors. Ron Paul supported that despite strong criticism at the time.

Ron Paul often goes against popular opinion; he sticks to his principles. These are the hallmarks of an effective leader, and I think he could lead the US and her allies in a new and more diplomatic trend that could bring about peace. This is what everyone wants, and it is at the core of Ron Paul's popularity. There is nothing divisive about his stance.

The first war the US fought dealt with entitlements and foreign aid. The Barbary pirates demanded tribute from the US or their supply routes would be attacked. Jefferson went to the Congress and got support to go after the pirates when they marauded our ships. This is the proper way to fight wars, and the correct attitude toward foreign aid. The US taxpayer should not bribe foreign governments to behave responsibly. It ends badly. I could cite Pakistan, who received $10 billion this year and then devolved into a military dictatorship - pretty scary for a country with nukes!

Iran has no nuclear capability, and I'm leery of politicians crying out for 'regime change' again. Bragging that 2003 was a violent deterrent to pursuing their program, so that's a reason to keep bearing down on them is ludicrous and tyrannical. Several US military experts have (rightly, I think) predicted disaster, if we pursue war with Iran. Our troops are exhausted, we face a dollar crisis and can only finance this war with loans from Red China, not to mention it is UNNECESSARY right now. War should be a last resort. Yes, I agree the Iranian president is a loudmouth and a demagogue; he probably won't get re-elected. This is a country where 2/3 of the population is under 30 and extremely well read (Iran is ranked fourth in world-wide participation in the blogosphere.) Think about this and bear in mind that 1) there is no such thing as a clean strike 2) any attack on a sovereign country brings up nationalist sentiment, so no country will ever greet brutes as liberators 3) Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has a right to continue an enrichment for peaceful purposes.

About economic policy, Ron Paul advocates a dual monetary currency, or a competing USD that is backed by precious metals. This is Constitutional. The twentieth century was a nightmare (because of the Federal Reserve, if you ask me) but if you take away inflation then with that goes the power of governments to wage endless wars or give ill-advised and dubious loans to countries that will never be able to repay them. This is a policy which paved the way for dictators like Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein, who we not only happily did business with, but in Saddam's case brought to power and heavily armed with the most dangerous weapons possible. I dislike George Bushes 41 and 43 for this reason, and I disagree with the neoconservatives that these measures are necessary as well as immoral. Secrecy goes against democracy. I don't believe a world of this making deserves to be policed and enforced. That goes against the founders' principles. These men were no strangers to these problems when they drafted our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson would probably have a similar position to Ron Paul's regarding foreign policy. I think Ron Paul would do whatever is necessary to protect our country, and I am behind him 100% for being our next POTUS.

That being said, welcome to the reLOVEution. What is it you DO like about Ron Paul?

 

[Corydoras]

What I would ask you to think about seriously, Lipo, is whether you think the other candidates care not only about the Constitution but about our liberties in general-- for example, about our privacy and about the ease of declaring martial law. Here are my concerns that brought me to Ron Paul that make him unique in my eyes:

Ron Paul opposes the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Real ID Act, and HIPAA, and is profoundly disturbed by the consequent erosion of habeas corpus, posse comitatus, and medical privacy.

I won't barrage you with sources just now. I figure that if you start to look into this, you will start a thread. Let me give you just one video that dramatizes the situation-- but I assure you that there is substance backing up its alarming tone if you just look for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl1VIhdpl4c (What We Chose to Ignore)

 

[pyroboy4206]

I appreciate, support and admire Dr. Ron Paul's veneration of the US Constitution and of his desire that the US government closely and accurately abide by it.

Question: Will Ron Paul accept me as a supporter? Would he mind if I openly advocate my point of view on this forum, even as diametrically opposed (with one exception) as it is to his own?

I don't know about the other people here. But the message Ron Paul seems to send out is a very accepting vibe. His message is a broader message than those that are on tv being talked about by the media. His messages are multi-layered. And a lot of them are very strong messages. Different people relate to him in different ways. I would think that one line-obeying the constitution- is the best anyone can promise. I assume even though people have differences in oppinions, races, or whatever, we all have the same goal. That goal is to be granted equal and fair rights. No matter what your view be on other things, it is necessary for people who believe in the constitution to be united. I think that many of his supporters are in favor of personal rights.. I say this dude, I think you are welcome here, as much as i at least..

 

[pyroboy4206]

I appreciate, support and admire Dr. Ron Paul's veneration of the US Constitution and of his desire that the US government closely and accurately abide by it.
Question: Will Ron Paul accept me as a supporter? Would he mind if I openly advocate my point of view on this forum, even as diametrically opposed (with one exception) as it is to his own?

I don't know about the other people here. But the message Ron Paul seems to send out is a very accepting vibe. His message is a broader message than those that are on tv being talked about by the media. His messages are multi-layered. And a lot of them are very strong messages. Different people relate to him in different ways. I would think that one line-obeying the constitution- is the best anyone can promise. I assume even though people have differences in oppinions, races, or whatever, we all have the same goal. That goal is to be granted equal and fair rights. No matter what your view be on other things, it is necessary for people who believe in the constitution to be united. I think that many of his supporters are in favor of personal rights.. I say this dude, I think you are welcome here, as much as i at least..

 

[han_solo]

I think there is more than enough room for people who differ with a candidate in one or more topics... There is no such thing as a PERFECT candidate.

Myself, I believe that after having done my own extensive research into the nature of the threat of Islam, that perhaps Ron Paul is misguided. The true threat we face is from Islam itself, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim...the whole religion was founded by a warlord pedophile who went on raids of conquest to pillage, murder, and rape. The whole purpose of Islam is to take over the entire world and unite it all under the Islamic banner and rules.

BUT, other than that issue, I am totally sick of Republicans like Bush who are nothing more than democrat-lite(tm) and just more big spending socialists who just happen to be a little stronger on defense.

I have a well worn copy of "conscience of a conservative", most all of Bill Buckley's books, and strongly believe that our country has gone downhill since FDR got away with threating the supreme court into submission and successfully destroyed the 10th amendment which made the federal government turn into the overbearing piece of crap it is today.


Ron Paul is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT on target for his domestic agendas, and 99% on this foreign policies. We do have to end all this welfare, end our entanglements, get the hell out of that dictator cesspool UN, and be much more careful about what they hell we get involved in...I just think we have to be tough and on guard against these crazy Islamic nutjobs with world domination dreams in their eyes from getting too much power or nuclear weapons.


So...yeah come on in and join the crowd. There is really no other place for REAL CONSERVATIVES to turn...certainly there is not any room in the mainstream socialist republican tent anymore.

 

[driller80545]

Sure, welcome to the forums, Lipo, and don't worry about a little difference of opinion. In order to introduce you to how open minded we are here I suggest that the first thread you join in on be one that includes "conspiracy" in its title. This should be a good place to air a difference of opinion.