It is not just Israel that has working spynets in the US. It is EVERYONE!!! They need them, the US and its policies can not be trusted. ---- wanna narrow this down a bit?
It is not just Israel --- no, israel just happens to be the largest, most effective lobby in DC a lobby that can destroy any voice in opposition to israel the US and its policies can not be trusted. --- but somehow the israelis can trust the US to protect them? On Oct 3, 2:06 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > Painol, > > It is not just Israel that has working spynets in the US. It is > EVERYONE!!! They need them, the US and its policies can not be > trusted. > > On Oct 3, 10:57 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and > > there > > wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including > > Viet > > Nam > > --- > > are you implying that communism was a direct threat to our > > sovereignty? > > if so, then wouldn't you say that socialism is a direct threat? > > > You may in fact disagree with the logic, (and like most > > Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine > > ---- > > Truman: > > I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own > > destinies in their own way. > > Speech to a joint session of the US Congress (12 March 1947), > > outlining what became known as The Truman Doctrine. > > > All the president is, is a glorified public relations man who spends > > his time flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do > > what they are supposed to do anyway. > > > Had ten minutes conversation with Henry Morgenthau about Jewish > > ship in Palistine. Told him I would talk to Gen[eral] Marshall about > > it. He'd no business, whatever to call me. The Jews have no sense of > > proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs. Henry > > brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis > > and they stayed. When the country went backward — and Republican in > > the election of 1946, this incident loomed large on the DP [Displaced > > Person] program. The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care > > not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks > > get murdered or mistreated as DP as long as the Jews get special > > treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political > > neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or > > mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no > > difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, > > Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who > > remember their past condition when prosperity comes. > > > On Oct 3, 11:08 am, Keith In Köln <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey PlainOl', > > > > Israel is a conundrum, and not a good example of other hot spots in the > > > world, albeit they are right in the middle of several issues. > > > > To the point, if any Nation does any act that would threaten the > > > sovereignty > > > of the United States, then I think we have the right to intervene. Thus, > > > when there are those who are not identified with a Nation-State, but are > > > devout on seeing Islam return to its glory of the 11th and 12th centuries, > > > then yes, I think we have every right to intervene. So was the case with > > > Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq (which we believed was a potential threat in > > > 2003) and Pakistan just last year, when we violated Pakistan's > > > soveriegnty > > > to go in and emasculate Osama bin Laden. > > > > I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and there > > > wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including Viet > > > Nam, and Iraq. You may in fact disagree with the logic, (and like most > > > Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine with the case of Viet Nam) > > > and/or be intent on revising contemporary history, but again, I can think > > > of > > > no incidents. (Maybe the Spanish American War....) > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:04 PM, plainolamerican > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > would we as a Nation have a right to interfere > > > > --- > > > > yes ... even to the extent of dismantling their government, if > > > > necessary > > > > but, remember, this is not about controlling resources or protecting > > > > one foreign government from another > > > > > backatcha: > > > > If the US stops providing military support to israel and their enemies > > > > attack them should we interfere? > > > > remember, israel has spied on us, killed our soldiers, corrupted our > > > > politicians and promotes socialism in our nation > > > > > On Oct 3, 9:50 am, Keith In Köln <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hey PlainOl', (And Michael, Bruce, and all other Ron Paul Supporters > > > > here > > > > > in PF!) > > > > > > I have a question, I think it's rather simple. I am going to give a > > > > > hypothetical: > > > > > > "If Mexico decides to revert back to 19th or early 20th century > > > > technology, > > > > > and the Nation chooses to dump all of its sewers, waste streams both > > > > > residential and commercial, (which would potentially include chemical > > > > waste > > > > > and toxins, leachates, etc.) into a system that is untreated, and > > > > > the > > > > > stream of waste is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico, where the Nation of > > > > > Mexico builds a pipe in international waters to divert this stream > > > > > away > > > > from > > > > > its coast, where eventually, it is going to end up on American beaches > > > > and > > > > > shorelines, would we as a Nation have a right to interfere, or to > > > > > stop > > > > such > > > > > a waste stream?" > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, plainolamerican > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Beginning in the early part of the twentieth century, people like > > > > > > Woodrow Wilson began supposing that we had the right and duty to be > > > > > > the world’s keepers, and they have proceeded to mess things up > > > > > > around > > > > > > the world ever since. > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > spot on! > > > > > > > those who think the US should interfere in the internal affairs of > > > > > > other nations and fund their militaries should fight and fund their > > > > > > own charities without US tax dollars and soldiers > > > > > > > you're either an American or something else > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 10:05 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The Cult of Reagan, and Other Neocon Folliesby Thomas E. Woods, > > > > > > > Jr. > > > > > > > Some time agoThe American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord claimed Ron > > > > > > > Paul’s > > > > > > foreign policy of nonintervention was "liberal," and that > > > > > > conservatives > > > > are > > > > > > supposed to be hawkish on foreign policy. Now to some extent, no one > > > > really > > > > > > cares about these labels, and who qualifies as what. But it is > > > > obviously > > > > > > false to say that supporters of nonintervention must be > > > > > > left-liberals. > > > > I > > > > > > showed this in my YouTube response, which dismantled Lord’s entire > > > > position: > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8&feature=player_embeddedIfi.... > > > > There is no wiggle room left for Lord after that. > > > > > > As Gary North put it, "The lesson here is simple: don’t get Woods on > > > > your > > > > > > case if you are saying really stupid things about American history." > > > > > > > Yet hecame back for more. With a busy schedule both personally and > > > > > > professionally, I have only now had the time to respond, which I’m > > > > doing in > > > > > > a series of bullet points. > > > > > > > 1) I pointed out in the video that the anti-imperialist movement > > > > > > > in > > > > the > > > > > > late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was dominated by the > > > > > > conservatives, as historian William Leuchtenberg has noted. I > > > > > > likewise > > > > > > pointed out that we may count on one hand the number of Progressives > > > > who > > > > > > opposed U.S. entry into World War I. I further noted that the recent > > > > > > interventions Lord supports were likewise supported by Hillary > > > > > > Clinton, > > > > > > Howard Stern, theNew York Times, and theWashington Post(among > > > > > > others I > > > > > > mentioned). Before Lord goes attacking other people for their > > > > > > tactical > > > > > > alliances, he might make note of the beam in his own eye. > > > > > > > Lord does not acknowledge any of this. I wouldn’t, either, were I > > > > > > > in > > > > his > > > > > > shoes. > > > > > > > 2) Lord is obsessed with Ronald Reagan, and again condemns Ron > > > > > > > Paul > > > > for > > > > > > opposing Reagan’s expansion of government power. The weird cult of > > > > > > personality around the deceased former president reveals that Reagan > > > > has > > > > > > become the Right’s Obama: a man whose every action is to be treated > > > > > > as > > > > ipso > > > > > > facto brilliant, perhaps even divinely inspired. Critics are mere > > > > heretics > > > > > > whose arguments need not actually be refuted; the mere fact that > > > > > > they > > > > have > > > > > > disagreed with the Great Leader is enough to condemn them forever. > > > > > > > How dare you say Ronald Reagan wasn’t free-market enough! He > > > > supported > > > > > > the free market to the precisely correct extent, says the Supreme > > > > Neocon > > > > > > Council. > > > > > > > That Lord is more interested in someone’s loyalty toa manthan he > > > > > > > is > > > > in > > > > > > loyalty to the principles that the man was supposed to represent, is > > > > the > > > > > > classic expression of a cult of personality. > > > > > > > 3) In pointing out that Felix Morley, one of the founding editors > > > > > > > of > > > > the > > > > > > weekly conservative newspaperHuman Events, was himself a > > > > noninterventionist, > > > > > > it was obviously not my intention to argue thatHuman Eventsfavors > > > > > > nonintervention abroad as an editorial position. I myself have been > > > > > > published and interviewed numerous times inHuman Events, so I’m > > > > > > quite > > > > > > familiar with its editorial line. The point is that Lord describes > > > > > > nonintervention as a "liberal" (as in left-liberal, not classical > > > > liberal) > > > > > > position. As long as I can find some indisputably non-liberal > > > > supporters of > > > > > > nonintervention, I win. No one in his right mind would consider > > > > > > Morley > > > > a > > > > > > left-liberal. But Morley is simply Exhibit A. > > > > > > > 4) Here’s Exhibit B: Lord’s own superior atThe American Spectator, > > > > senior > > > > > > editor Angelo > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
