I really enjoy you too Michael!  I sincerely mean that!  I know I talk a
lot of "Smack"!  But sincerely,  I think you are an intelligent, thought
provoking gentleman!




On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:33 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> You *ARE* funny.
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> "Now the neocons are whining that the very term “neocon” has become “a
> curseword”! " -- Justin Raimondo
>  http://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-new-curseword/
>
>
> At 06:22 PM 1/17/2014, you wrote:
>
> We've established that you don't know the definition of a "Neo-Con";  it
> shouldn't be any surprise to you that some buster doesn't either.....
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Yeah ... THAT is it.
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> Neocons *are* true conservatives. They are the true  paleocons. They have
> returned to the values that have always informed true conservativism ever
> since the days of Alexander Hamilton: a large, intrusive federal
> government; extensive regulation of business, with an eye to assisting
> favored constituents; hostility to immigrants and those abroad who would
> like to trade with Americans; and a bellicose foreign policy.   -- Jeff
> Riggenbach
>
>
>
>
>  At 10:28 AM 1/17/2014, you wrote:
>
> Obviously,  Jacob Heilbrun doesn't know what the definition of a "Neo-Con"
> is.....
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:25 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>     - JACOB HEILBRUNN <http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn> Share
>       on 
> email<http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/john-mccains-neocon-manifesto-7404#>
>  Share
>       on 
> twitter<http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/john-mccains-neocon-manifesto-7404#>
>  Share
>       on 
> facebook<http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/john-mccains-neocon-manifesto-7404#>
>  Share
>       on 
> digg<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=nationalinterest&source=tbx-300&lng=en-US&s=digg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalinterest.org%2Fblog%2Fjacob-heilbrunn%2Fjohn-mccains-neocon-manifesto-7404&title=John%20McCain%27s%20Neocon%20Manifesto%20%7C%20The%20National%20Interest%20Blog&ate=AT-nationalinterest/-/-/52d8b033af094f77/2&frommenu=1&uid=52d8b033050151f3&ct=1&pre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&tt=0&captcha_provider=nucaptcha>|More
>  Sharing 
> ServicesMore<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=nationalinterest>
>
>       -  [image: Printer-friendly version]
>       
> <http://nationalinterest.org/print/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/john-mccains-neocon-manifesto-7404>
>        
> <http://nationalinterest.org/print/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/john-mccains-neocon-manifesto-7404>
>       - Jacob Heilbrunn<http://nationalinterest.org/profile/jacob-heilbrunn>
>       - |
>       - August 29, 2012
>       - It's no secret that John McCain, once a prominent realist, has
>       steadily converted to neoconservatism over the past two decades. He is 
> now
>       the movement's most visible champion, which is to say that McCain has 
> been
>       at the forefront of championing almost every bad idea of the past 
> decade,
>       including serving as a cheerleader for the war in Iraq.
>       - McCain's vision of American power and influence around the globe
>       is so open-ended that it constitutes an invitation for hegemony, 
> something
>       that China is bound to reject. One thing that is missing in McCain's 
> essay
>       is that the Iraq War forms the origins of much of the current mess. The
>       Bush administration expended trillions of dollars—with more to come in 
> the
>       form of payments to veterans over the next decades—trying to use Iraq 
> as a
>       demonstration shot for freedom in the rest of the Middle East.
>       - Another flaw in McCain's analysis is that he exaggerates the
>       Obama administration's passivity abroad. McCain suggests that Obama has
>       alienated allies such as Israel. He writes,
>     This is the feeling in Israel and the Gulf, where the threat of a
>    nuclear-armed Iran is existential, but trust in America's willingness to
>    address the problem has never been lower.
>
>     Really? Israel itself is experiencing a vigorous debate over whether
>    it makes sense to bomb Iran—something that McCain does not demand that
>    Obama accomplish, saying rather that there needs to be a realistic
>    national-security threat. But it's difficult to discern how Obama could be
>    much more accommodating to Israel, short of giving it carte blanche, which,
>    I guess, is what would amount to a realistic threat for McCain.
>
>    On Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:49:21 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: Not
>    an opinion Plain Ol.  Fact:  Neither Graham or McCain are former registered
>    Democrats.
>
>    On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:41 PM, plainolamerican 
> <[email protected]<http://??>>
>    wrote: opinion noted. they will all sacrifice American interests for
>    israel.
>
>    On Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:14:35 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: By
>    definition,  neither McCain nor the "Chinless Wonder"  Lindsey Graham are
>    "Neo-Cons". Fatalists?  Most definitely, but not Neo-Cons.
>
>    On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:52 PM, plainolamerican 
> <[email protected]<http://??>>
>    wrote: McCain, Graham, Menendez --- 3 zionists who must be removed
>    from our government asap by any means necessary. On Tuesday, January
>    14, 2014 8:34:31 PM UTC-6, MJ wrote: McCain and Graham Go To Work
>    Against Iran Agreement Written by Daniel 
> McAdams<http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert.aspx?author=Daniel+McAdams>
>  Tuesday
>    January 14, 2014
>    Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) continue to pull
>    out all stops in attempt to scuttle the six-month interim agreement between
>    the P5+1 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P5+1> and Iran. The agreement
>    is meant to provide some space for negotiations to continue between the two
>    sides while allowing for some confidence to be built in place of a
>    decades-long hostile relationship.
>    The six month water-testing agreement is not meant as a permanent
>    agreement nor is it a legally-binding Chapter VII UNSC resolution.
>    Nevertheless, the neocons, led by Messrs McCain and Graham, are
>    determined to plant as many IEDs along the road to diplomatic resolution as
>    possible.
>    Today McCain and Graham issued another joint 
> release<http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=abac1126-8b42-478c-bbc6-a12d053bcc85>,
>    this time raising the red flag over a rumor they heard that the agreement
>    included some implementation language to which they had not yet been privy.
>    What has the Senators so concerned? Rumors that for the next six
>    months: Iran will be permitted to keep all of its nuclear facilities
>    open, continue its enrichment of uranium, and maintain and even expand its
>    nuclear research, including into next-generation centrifuges.
>
>     Even if this "nonpaper <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/non-paper> "
>    has been included as part of the six-month deal, it is hardly the
>    revelation that the Senators would have us to believe. All of these
>    activities are already permitted by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of
>    which Iran is a signatory.
>    Yes, Iran is already allowed to engage in these activities according
>    to existing international treaty to which the US is also a party, meaning
>    the US recognizes this existing right.
>    But the Senators are trying to make something of nothing to push their
>    pet project: passage of Sens. Menendez and Kirk's green light to war
>    legislation, the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act.
>    They conclude their hyperactive press release by pushing their real
>    agenda: these reports only add greater urgency to the calls from an
>    increasing number of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to pass
>    new bipartisan sanctions legislation as soon as possible.
>
>     As Patrick Buchanan points 
> out<http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2014/01/13/a-blank-check-for-war-on-iran/>today:
>  When
>    the interim agreement was reached, it was denounced by neocons as �worse
>    than Munich.� Now the War Party piously contends this Senate bill is
>    simply an �insurance policy� to ensure that the terms of the deal are
>    met and a final deal reached. It is nothing of the sort. This bill is
>    a project of AIPAC, the Israeli lobby, designed to sabotage and scuttle the
>    Geneva talks by telling Tehran: Either capitulate and dismantle all your
>    enrichment facilities, or face more severe sanctions which will put us on
>    the road to war. What terrifies AIPAC and Bibi is not an American war
>    on Iran, but an American rapprochement with Iran. Who are the leaders
>    of the push for S.1881? Sens. Mark Kirk and Robert Menendez, the biggest
>    recipients of AIPAC campaign cash.
>
>
> Expect more hysterics from McCain, Graham, Menendez, and the rest of the
> neocons. For a handy guide to which of them is likely to scream the
> loudest, please consult Professor Michael Rozeff's list 
> here<http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/u-s-senators-are-nearly-all-stooges-for-israel/>.
>
>
>
> http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2014/january/14/mccain-and-graham-go-to-work-against-iran-agreement.aspx
>
> --
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PoliticalForum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected] <http://??>.
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PoliticalForum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected] <http://??>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PoliticalForum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PoliticalForum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PoliticalForum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PoliticalForum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PoliticalForum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to