They are dogging RP hard

posted by Darc

So am I, but that doesn't mean I won't kill one innocent person in order to save a thousand more.

seriously? homicide is not something i'd condone - particularly on this board. but glad to see someone w/the balls to present viewpoints.

in the end, this is something we should agree on: we can not afford to police the world. we never have been able to afford it before, and we certainly can't now. i think you'd probably agree that foreign base closures and "reducing" (or ending, as most of us here would prefer) gov't aid to foreign governments should be a top priority,
 
Yes... yes I do.



Well then, we'd better have our shit together next time, don't you think?



No it doesn't.



Perhaps you have, but I can guarantee my fellow conservatives that I have not.



Did you know that Hitler had roots in Judaism?

How typical :rolleyes:

1. Present your evidence that interventionism is needed, does not cause blow-back, and is not harmful to our nation. I can give stacks of instances that illustrate the contrary.

2. Perhaps you should consider reading the Constitution and the 10th amendment. In addition, if you read the writings of the authors they were pretty clear on staying out of nations affairs.

3. Our country has propped up dictators and funded groups we now identify as terrorists. I take it you haven't bothered to research our relationship with Osama Bin Laden. That was interventionism.

4. Your final comparison doesn't make sense. Israel was very much involved in the creation of Hamas. It doesn't hurt to do a little research, you know.
 
Perhaps, instead of asking a bunch of varied questions to Edward, its better if we ask him what problems his side has with Ron Paul's platform so to speak?

This way we can narrow it down and get right to the point???
This is what I was thinking, too. There will be no meeting of the minds on foreign policy until Obama invades Pakistan. The real issue here is the dismissiveness which Ron Paul and his supporters face when discussing anything with "conservatives" that share Edward's worldview.

I am always ready to engage in a conversation with people who don't think they agree with Ron Paul because whether they realize it or not they agree with him more than they think.
 
Darc, if the term "Neoconservative" is such a derogatory term, why is the current political platform of the mainstream GOP so closely tied with its views and beliefs?

How the hell should I know?

Are you familiar with Bill Kristol and his influence on the party? The entire Bush Administration adheres to their values, as did McCain, and the next GOP nominee will also.

Why are you telling me this?

Call us kooks and loons, but we've been involved with the party at local and state levels and have encountered this entrenched opposition personally.

Ok, you're kooks.

Are you aware what they did to Ron Paul in Nevada and Louisiana?

Why the hell should I care?

How do you justify taking offense to the term that helped to shape the current GOP platform?

Easy... it's offensive!

If you disagree with Neoconservative views why are you still involved with and defending the GOP?

Because its better to fight city hall from within than to stand outside the gates of power baying at the moon like a freakin' hapless hound.
 
How the hell should I know?



Why are you telling me this?



Ok, you're kooks.



Why the hell should I care?



Easy... it's offensive!



Because its better to fight city hall from within than to stand outside the gates of power baying at the moon like a freakin' hapless hound.
Pffftt. Why are you here? I'm not going to tell you to leave but seriously... this post shows you for who you are.

And I'm sticking with my original supposition that you and your Chimpy friends are Wonkettes in disguise.
 
seriously? homicide is not something i'd condone - particularly on this board. but glad to see someone w/the balls to present viewpoints.

Hell, I'd slit the throat of my next door neighbor if I knew that doing so would save my town from destruction.

in the end, this is something we should agree on: we can not afford to police the world. we never have been able to afford it before, and we certainly can't now.

Not afford to police the world? What exactly do you mean by that?
 
Hell, I'd slit the throat of my next door neighbor if I knew that doing so would save my town from destruction.
How quaint. :rolleyes:

Not afford to police the world? What exactly do you mean by that?
Are you kidding? Our military is in over 130 countries around the world. They have been used to "spread democracy :rolleyes:), which usually means overthrowing the country's duly elected leader and installing a puppet of our own choosing, oh, and last, but not least, we now use our military to carry out UN sanctions.

Our military should be used ONLY to defend the United States. Period.

Does that answer your question?
 
Back
Top