a neocon is a liberal turned inside out? --- Critics take issue with neoconservatives' support for aggressive foreign policy. Critics from the left take issue with what they characterize as unilateralism and lack of concern with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations. Neoconservatives respond by describing their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by actively promoting freedom and democracy abroad as in the democratic peace theory through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is a departure from the traditional conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems and possible destabilization. Republican Congressman and libertarian leaning 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul has been a long time critic of the neoconservative movement as an attack on freedom and the U.S. Constitution, including an extensive speech on the House floor addressing neoconservative roots and how neoconservatism is neither new nor conservative.
you can't say the word neoconservative without using the word jews On Apr 24, 11:52 am, geoffrey theist <[email protected]> wrote: > so you're saying a neocon is a liberal turned inside out? > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > BOTH OF YOU SIMMER DOWN.... > > > Keith, I am on the proverbial fence here. I find no real differences > > in what Obama or Romney has actually DONE in their public lives. > > > I do see a great difference in their private endeavors. > > > 1 = 1 however does not add up to 3. I do NOT believe Romney is a > > Conservative Republican any more than I believe Obama is a Liberal > > Democrat. > > > Romney will NOT cancel ANY of Obamas Executive orders... the man in > > power likes such things. I see more permits to drill but see less > > actual drilling ... just the opposite of Obama with the same result. > > > What I can not abide though is the utter lack of responsible control > > the government has on spending. I see no change forthcoming with > > either. > > > The only hope that truly exists is a state by state vote for an > > immovable spending cap for the Feds and an absolute mandate for a > > balanced budget. > > > Law enforcement must start to be dictated by the local Sheriffs and > > the States must give the Feds a true and forceful coat hanger bitch > > slap. > > > On Apr 24, 10:36 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I actually mis-spoke in that reply. What I meant to say, was when Paul > > > knew that the bill would pass, would be when he would cast his, "Nay" > > > vote..... > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > Ron Paul, who I have the utmost respect for, was notorious for voting > > > > against earmarks when he would load up a bill with earmarks and once he > > > > knew the bill was doomed, would cast his "Nay" vote.....Paul has a lot > > of > > > > "politician" in him..... > > > > > What portion of the Bush Administration's foreign policy do you > > consider > > > > to be, "Socialist"? What part of Romney's rhetorical foreign policy > > do you > > > > consider to be "socialist"? > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:17 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> With all due respect, to suggest that there is no difference between > > the > > > >> Republican Party and the Democrat Party, or that there is no > > difference > > > >> between President Obama and Ron Paul, or President Obama and Mitt > > Romney, > > > >> or President Obama and Newt Gingrich is asinine, but yet you > > continue to > > > >> expound upon this theory day in and day out. > > > > >> I realize that the Rs TALK about being FOR A, B, C, D and E and > > AGAINST > > > >> F, G, H, I and J while the Ds TALK about being AGAINST A, B, C, D and > > E and > > > >> FOR F, G, H, I and J but with the exception of the RARE (temporary) > > bone > > > >> that is thrown, they work in concert to further the FASCISM that is > > endemic > > > >> in America. All these 'show issues' are put back in the closet until > > the > > > >> NEXT election cycle beckons for them. This 'trend' goes back PAST > > Roosevelt > > > >> and his embrace ... > > > > >> As we have seen -- rhetoric aside -- is an Obama administration that > > > >> merely picked up when the Bush administration left off ... picking up > > where > > > >> Mr. Bill had left off ... Socialist A and Socialist B. The Rs hail and > > > >> cheer Socialist A while the Ds despise him ... similarly, the Ds hail > > and > > > >> cheer Socialist B while the Rs despise him. All the while America gets > > > >> further fucked. > > > > >> What is it you imagine a Romney (who will not win) will do > > DIFFERENTLY? > > > >> You do realize that his Foreign Policy Advisors (for example) are ALL > > > >> retreads from Bush II? What type of revelations do you suppose these > > guys > > > >> have had? > > > > >> I made no claims that Ron Paul -- who, unlike MOST, has a long track > > > >> record to support his rhetoric -- was the same as Obama. > > > > >> During the Republican primaries, both Paul's and Romney's campaigns > > > >> broadcast prevaricate, outright untruthful statements against ALL > > other > > > >> candidates, ALL of which were conservatives. I have been involved in > > > >> politics all of my adult, professional career. I have never seen a > > > >> Republican Primary ever get this nasty, and up until 2012, I had > > never > > > >> seen Republicans turn on one another as I did during the 2012 > > Republican > > > >> Primary. This has not happened, in at least the last eight > > presidential > > > >> elections. > > > > >> Let's see a LIST of these so-called 'untruthful' statements -- not > > merely > > > >> some veiled generalities. > > > >> Please DEFINE 'conservative' so we might have a basis upon which to > > > >> measure. > > > > >> THIS Primary Season required the establishment to provide distractions > > > >> and other bread and circuses in order to ensure THEIR chosen > > candidate was > > > >> the headliner. Not ONLY do we see this in the infomercials parading as > > > >> debates, but in the rampant fraud at the various caucus efforts. > > These guys > > > >> cannot WAIT for the Government 'take over' and 'control' of the > > internet. > > > > >> That you fail to recognize this Theater speaks volumes. > > > > >> As Ronald Reagan said back in 1979-1980, "Thou shalt not speak ill > > of a > > > >> fellow conservative"; and both Romney and Paul broke that rule. > > > > >> AGAIN, let's see SUBSTANCE -- a definition of 'conservative' AND these > > > >> so-called 'untruths'. > > > > >> If you think that Dr. Paul has a chance to win, something that even > > Dr. > > > >> Paul admits that he has no chance of doing, then this speaks > > volumes. Dr. > > > >> Paul made it quite clear back in February that his intent is/was to > > > >> influence the Republican Party Platform, and for that, I commend him. > > > > >> Perhaps you might provide the actual statement HERE (with context) as > > > >> well. > > > > >> Regard$, > > > >> --MJ > > > > >> So the GOP, running mostly the last few years on abolishing Obamacare, > > > >> will nominate the candidate who pioneered Obamacare? -- Judge Andrew > > > >> Napolitano > > > > >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:10 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> What -- specifically -- made Paul's campaign 'despicable'? > > > >> What -- specifically -- made Romney's campaign 'despicable'? > > > > >> Suggesting that one's vote for who they WANT is a vote for the guy > > > >> running against the guy you want is meaningless fear mongering. If > > your > > > >> team WANTED those voters seeking an actual choice, they would have put > > > >> forth a candidate that differentiated himself in such a manner. That > > there > > > >> is no demonstrable difference between Socialist A and Socialist B .... > > > > >> Republicans have been faithfully supporting/voting for WHATEVER > > Candidate > > > >> the Republican establishment has paraded in front of them for decades > > -- > > > >> they count upon it. > > > > >> Of course Smith was merely exposing how no matter what is supposed to > > > >> have changed ... it merely remains the same. > > > > >> Regard$, > > > >> --MJ > > > > >> "For libertarians, Obama versus Romney is going to be an exercise in > > > >> dullness. What's the difference between them other than party label?" > > -- > > > >> Jacob Hornberger > > > > >> At 03:48 PM 4/23/2012, you wrote: > > > > >> <Sigh>........ > > > > >> I understand your thought process......I am sympathetic to it, despite > > > >> the despicable campaign that Paul (and Romney) ran this year. > > > > >> As cliche' as it might sound, (and I realize that this sounds > > > >> "cliche'!"; to abstain from voting, is literally another vote for > > the > > > >> Obama Administration, which they are counting upon. > > > > >> It's still too early to determine who will be the Republican nominee. > > I > > > >> strongly encourage you, and anyone else who holds the position that > > they > > > >> will abstain from voting unless there is a Third Party Candidate, > > and/or > > > >> Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, to NOT etch anything into > > stone, > > > >> and consider the consequences IF Obama wins a second term! > > > > >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM, plainolamerican < > > [email protected]> > > > >> wrote: I'm voting Paul -- or not at all. --- one day third party > > > >> candidates will win and end the corruption that's inherent in the two > > > >> party system. until then it's more of the same politically corrupt > > > >> parties On Apr 23, 10:04 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "Sound > > > >> familiar? > "Today, every scribbler or babbler in the "Mainstream > > > >> Media", and at least three quarters of the pundits in the "New > > Media", for > > > >> reasons of their own, want desperately for you to believe that if > > America's > > > >> next President isn't going to be Barack Obama, then it has to be Mitt > > > >> Romney. > ""Elect Socialist Party B to avoid electing Socialist Party > > > >> A!""A Little History Lessonby L. Neil [email protected] > > > Attribute > > > >> toL. Neil Smith'sThe Libertarian Enterprise > In 1964, one of the most > > > >> formative years in American history, the "movers and shakers" in the > > > >> Republican Party were faced with the terrible prospect of the voters > > > >> actually getting the candidate they wanted, instead of whatever > > member of > > > >> Skull & Bones and the Council On Foreign Relations the party elite, in > > > >> their wisdom, had chosen for them. > I was an enthusiastic part of a > > > >> movement then that was almost indistinguishable from the Tea Party > > movement > > > >> of today, pretty much with all the same virtues and failings: for > > better or > > > >> worse, almost exactly the same general cast of characters. > > Nevertheless, > > > >> over the outraged squawking of the GOP leadership, it was the > > > >> candidatewewanted, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who won the > > nomination > > > >> that year. > Goldwater wasn't the first mid-20th century conservative > > to > > > >> occupy the political spotlight. That would be Senator Robert Taft -- a > > > >> little before my time -- who was cheated out of the nomination by a > > corrupt > > ... > > 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.
