“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Saturday, December 31, 2011

Why The Neocons Hate Ron Paul

Why are Americans fighting and dying in the Middle East? Why are the right wing media mouthpieces in overdrive sliming Ron Paul? I found this talk by Wesley Clark from 2008 about the cynical manipulation of American foreign policy by the Neocons and the flackery in the so-called right-wing media. Pay attention to the last 45 seconds of Wesley Clark’s speech. How do you answer his questions?




Here is the “Dangerous" Ron Paul:

74 comments:

  1. I guess it comes down to those who place real American interests first. Real Americans. It should be no surprise than Ron Paul has more financial support from the US military than all the other candidates combined.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As Teddy Roosevelt said, hyphenated Americans are the scum of the nation, best moving on to their natural Heartland.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ron Paul’s momentum is stronger than anybody in the mainstream media, and much of the conservative blog-o-sphere is saying. The neocons could ignore, demonize, and spin all they want. As a once life-time supporter of the G.O.P. (except for voting for Ron Paul as nominee of the Libertarian Party) I will flat-out say that I will never vote for a Perry, a Gingrich, a Romney or any other Republican unless Ron Paul is treated fairly. The neo-con supporters of continuous warfare and lack of true faithfulness to the Constitution just don’t get it. The Republican party has lost its way…both Bush’s saw to that (especially the son).

    I despise the neo-cons!! Let them go back to where they came from, the democrat party! Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air, a true statesman. Ron Paul in 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Senator Santorum is a liar. America needs people who tell the truth. That is Ron Paul.

    Here is a typical view by an ex-marine who knows what he is talking about:

    "http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-lG0EK4YQ_c#!”

    ReplyDelete
  5. House of Representatives


    Party Ayes Nays
    Republican 215 6

    Democratic 82 126

    Independent 0 1
    TOTALS 297 133 0 3



    Senate

    Party Ayes Nays No Vote
    Republican 48 1 0
    Democratic 29 21 0
    Independent 0 1 0
    TOTALS 77 23 0



    Vote on the Iraq Resolution.

    There must be a good number of 'neocons' in the democratic party, particularly in the Senate. Are they placing real American interests, as they saw them at the time, first, or did they vote for the way they did for some other reason?

    b

    ReplyDelete
  6. That vote was the declaration of war, and it was more or less bipartisan.

    The 'neocons' must be evil geniuses being able to coerce the majority of democrats in the Senate like that.

    However one feels about the war, it wasn't just a 'neocon' war.

    Don't you recall all those clips of various democrats, Kerry included, swearing up and down Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

    I think, putting an exclamation point to a bad situation, we may well have pulled the troops out too soon, regardless of whether they should have been there in the first place. Place may well unwind, after all that effort.

    I'd suggest all those 'neocon' democrats are just as much "Real Americans" as you.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  7. No one has 'slimed' Ron Paul.

    People have used his own words against him.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  8. When 29 democratic Senators vote yes, and only 21 vote no, it gets kinda hard to call it GWBs' War.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wesley Clark is full of shit. I don't believe a word he says.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "There's none so blind as those who will not see.”

    Vote on the Iraq Resolution.

    There must be a good number of 'neocons' in the democratic party, particularly in the Senate. Are they placing real American interests, as they saw them at the time, first, or did they vote for the way they did for some other reason?

    b


    Did you bother to watch Clark’s speech and pay attention to the dates? Clark was told by Pentagon insiders that the intention was to take down all of the Arab and Iranian dictators. What replaces them? A grateful college of democratic cardinals? Ten years of empire in Iraq was not enough?

    Who fights these stinking pointless rotten wars, the alumni of Yale, Harvard and Princeton, their children? Where were the windpipes of talk radio when the pipes were calling them to war?

    Did you bother to watch the the video clip put up by truthseeker3? In it the claim is made that 4% of the military takes 80% of the casualties? Is that true?

    Every time we attack or support an attack on another Muslim country, we add to the jihad. We will be hit again and again and each time we will loose more personal freedoms taken away by our own government. The vast majority of real Americans have lost wealth and security because of the military adventures, wars we never win. The argument and excuses are always the same. We left too soon. Ten years of Iraq was not enough? Was the magic number 15, 25, 55?

    How many years will it take in Afghanistan? What is the mystery formula that makes empire work? How will a land war with Iran work for you? Do you even bother to look at the current events taking place in Iraq, Egypt and Libya?

    Better yet, how are things working out in Detroit or Philadelphia with 50 million Americans on food stamps? Will an attack on Iran reduce that to 40 million.

    When the 20,000 wounded no longer have fresh faces and are in wheel chairs living on subsistent pensions will you help them out?

    Open your eyes and your ears. Open your brain .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ten years have gotten us Nouri Al Maliki in Iraq. I'd say "the model is broken."

    ReplyDelete
  12. I happen to agree with R. Paul's philosophy of a small, limited Federal government. I may even vote for the man, however I also believe that this idea of a land war in Iran is being overblown for political purposes.

    The term Neocon became a pejorative used ad infinitum until finally Obama was elected. For a while, mercifully, it fell out of daily use until Ron Paul supporters dredged it up. Now, the idea of a land war is being used to rally support for Ron Paul. Potential supporters come from across the political spectrum ranging from the liberal Cindy Sheehan type antiwar voters to the conservatives such as frequent this very establishment. But is this threat of war real or is it a political tool employed to gain votes? There is absolutely no political support for the US becoming involved in a land war anywhere in the world. Any neocon ideas of toppling one middle eastern country after another have long since fallen by the wayside. The fact remains that Iran is bent on developing nuclear technology and with it the capability of producing nuclear weapons. We can argue over the time table and their ability to deliver an nuclear ICBM but let's not ignore the political reality that the Iranian Mullahs have declared their intentions. Let's not kid ourselves that the mullahs are peace loving humanitarians with no Islamic or nuclear agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No, there is no political support for "endless war." So, the people have to be tricked into it.

    First, you conflate concepts such as "sanctions, embargo, and blockade." With any kind of luck at all, you'll run into some sort of opportunity to set up a "Tonkin Gulf/Liberty" type situation.

    From there, it's easy.

    I have yet to read of one of those evil mullahs strapping on a "suicide vest" and making himself the 4th topping on some Jew's carry-out. When I start reading such stories I might change my mind, but, right now, I just don't see it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. J'Accuse
    BY MATT CONTINETTI


    As a result of the war, neoconservatives are suddenly everywhere. After Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace prize last year, Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift wrote that “the same neocons who denigrate Carter’s peace prize look upon the United Nations as an encumbrance to war.” The American Prospect’s Robert Dreyfuss labeled Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress, a “neocon”: “If T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) had been a 21st-century neoconservative operative instead of a British imperial spy, he’d be Ahmed Chalabi's best friend.” The Washington Monthly’s Joshua Micah Marshall accused neoconservatives of hoping that conflict in Iraq would presage a wider, regional Middle East war.

    Blaming the war on neoconservatives wasn’t the exclusive domain of the antiwar Left. Patrick Buchanan recently created a magazine, The American Conservative, devoted to fighting conservatives who “relish the prospect of the coming Pax Americana and ‘cakewalk’ to Baghdad,” according to a letter Buchanon wrote to The New Republic last year. “Do you seriously believe,” Buchanan went on to ask in the letter, “that conservatism is now wholly encompassed by Norman Podhoretz, Jonah Goldberg, Ramesh Ponnuru, Rich Lowry, our virtuous Teletubby William Bennett, Charles Krauthammer, and the Kristols, p`ere et fils?”

    Where did all these neoconservatives come from? And, more importantly, what is a neoconservative?

    As Buchanan’s letter suggests, the recent outbreak of neoconservatism occurred as the debate over the war became the dominant issue in American politics. The label has become shorthand for “pro-war conservative.” Case in point: of the list of so-called neoconservatives that Buchanan provided in his letter to The New Republic, only four — Norman Podhoretz, William Bennett, Charles Krauthammer, and Kristol p`ere — are actual, dyed-in-the-wool neoconservatives.

    It was “Kristol p`ere” (Irving Kristol), in fact, who invented the term neoconservative. Kristol had to come up with a label for the group of liberal intellectuals who became disillusioned with the New Left in the sixties and seventies, and who shortly thereafter left the Democratic party. Neoconservatives were literally “new” conservatives. At first, neoconservatives didn’t have much to say about foreign policy. The earliest neoconservatives were more disenchanted with the War on Poverty of the 1960s than they were with, say, the war in Vietnam. But a second wave of neoconservatives left the Democratic party after that party disgraced Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson.


    {…}

    ReplyDelete
  15. {…}

    Jackson was the living embodiment of the liberal interventionist wing of the Democratic party, a senator who stood for the projection of American power and the advancement of liberal democratic institutions throughout the world. By the late seventies, however, the Democratic party — which had become accomodationist toward the Soviet Union and actively supported a nuclear weapons freeze — had no place for Jackson, and thus had no place for Jackson’s supporters.

    While most neoconservatives were policy wonks, pundits, and other bookish sorts who haunted op-ed pages and the mastheads of “little magazines” like Commentary and The Public Interest — in other words, intellectuals who had little, if any, influence on policy — there was one neoconservative whose name you might recognize. He was a scholar and a life-long Democrat who found himself without a home in the Democratic party during the course of the seventies and early eighties, a classic example of a neoconservative. His name is Paul Wolfowitz, and he is currently Deputy Secretary of Defense.

    Contrary to what antiwar pundits claim, there are no neoconservatives in Bush’s cabinet — although there are several at the sub-cabinet level. These include not only Wolfowitz but Undersecretary for Defense Policy Douglas Feith and Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff, “Scooter” Libby — who occupy second- or thirdtier positions in the administration. But that’s it. One of the most infamous “neocons,” Richard Perle, chairs a group called the Defense Policy Board, but members of the Policy Board are not government employees.

    Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are life-long Republicans. They are pro-war. But they cannot be called, with any accuracy, neoconservatives. If most “neoconservatives” really aren’t neoconservatives at all, but are rather life-long conservatives or pro-war Democrats like The New Republic’s Lawrence F. Kaplan and the Carnegie Endowment’s Robert Kagan, then why is the label used so often by antiwar writers and activists? All of us rely on rules of thumb to interpret the vast array of political information we encounter on a daily basis. In the same way that “San Francisco Democrat” has come to mean “crazy liberal” for conservatives, “neoconservative” has become shorthand for someone who is pro-war. Such labels have little, if anything, to do with reality. Just as antiwar activists ignore the history and ideas of neoconservatives when they call Donald Rumsfeld a “neocon,” Republicans ignore the motives and ideas of unreconstructed liberals when they call Nancy Pelosi a “San Fransisco Democrat.”

    Promiscuously used political labels serve as cover for ignoring the reasoning behind people’s political positions. Would Robert Dreyfuss know a neoconservative if he met one on the street? Could radio host Michael Savage, if pressed, say even a few words about Herbert Croly’s The Promise of American Life, one of the touchstones of twentieth- century American liberal thought?

    This is the state of American political debate: pundits play rhetorical games and sling mud over nomenclature while interaction with the ideas and facts behind opposing viewpoints is anathematized. Are we rats in a maze — or people with ideas in our heads?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Martyrdom operations.

    That's what an unlimited supply of proxies are for and that's how the Palestinian and Iranian mullahs roll.

    Other mullahs such as in Afghanistan or Chechnya have gotten more involved in the front lines.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rat, I see you have now done your research and discovered that yes an exemption for China from US legislation would be needed for your idea that calling Iran's bluff could possibly remain a small footprint operation. If Iran should instead 'close the strait' it would not require a small foot print to open it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well, the is no "Rear" when the nukes start falling, and those Mullahs in Iran know it.

    They also know that any chances in an attack on Israel are "problematic," but the death of themselves, and "Their" nation is all but assured.

    Then, there is the simple fact that, without occupation, you can't stop them anyway. Hell, the CIA was on every street corner of Pakistan (to hear them tell it,) and they were as surprised as everyone else when the Pakis lit the firecracker.

    ReplyDelete
  19. P.s. That is often how nations end up at war - through a series of 'small' decisions as oppose to one big one.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Even, ash, if the there was no exemption, the Chinese could well continue to trade with China.

    That is a choice is for the Chinese to make.

    Charlie makes their choice, then the US makes its' choice.

    But, there is a "clue", have no doubt of that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Help me mister Deuce sir.
    Neocon policies like detention, expanded drone strikes, intervention via responsibility to protect, and FISA?
    Paul also states the Obama administrations use of sanctions is an act of war. So who's the neocon?
    Was Carter's Persian Gulf doctrine a neocon doctrine?

    Neocon, one of those pretty 5 dollar words like racist.

    ReplyDelete
  22. When Iran closes the strait with Scuds, even if they have an arrangement with China not to hit their ships, good luck China finding their own version of Lloyds of London to insure them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous said...
    Help me mister Deuce sir.
    Neocon policies like detention, expanded drone strikes, intervention via responsibility to protect, and FISA?
    Paul also states the Obama administrations use of sanctions is an act of war. So who's the neocon?
    Was Carter's Persian Gulf doctrine a neocon doctrine?

    Neocon, one of those pretty 5 dollar words like racist.


    To be against interventionism is not to side with the party to be engaged against. The argument is that you are either part of the solution or part of the problem. The implication is that it is impossible to mind your own business.

    This argument went to the extreme when Ron Paul was pilloried because he has ben accused of saying the United States did not have an obligation to stop the holocaust. The argument is based on fantasy, ignorance of the realities of the politics and military capacity of the time.

    It is an emotional rhetorical device to make a political argument. It is used all the time. If you do not support billions of aid for Africa you are a racist. If you do not support the Israeli government you are an anti-semite. If you do not give to the Sierra Club, you hate the environment. If you believe in global warming you are a leftist dunce.

    Every self proclaimed conservative in the media raps on about the Constitution. They love the Constitution if it serves their agenda. They miss the basis for even having a constitution. The Constitution was meant to protect people from the government. It tried to set limits on the powers of government. If one looks at the powers of government today, the Constitution is a document representing a failed ideal.

    No other government duty is more important than protecting the borders of the country and making decisions about war. Your politics will dictate how you feel about how well the government is doing either.

    Today, the Constitution is tolerated like a doddering old aunt. The name of the game is public opinion and the means to manipulate it to your cause.

    A Ron Paul is inconvenient to the agenda of the establishment at every level. Such men have always been feared and loathed, ridiculed and marginalized.

    Time is on the side of those who see the failures in our misguided policies in the Middle East and our misguided ignorance of the opportunities and challenges in Latin America. . I look forward to the day when the US sees a greater interest in Brazil over Saudi Arabia, Venezuela over Iran, Mexico over Egypt and Panama over Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  24. As Buchanan’s letter suggests, the recent outbreak of neoconservatism occurred as the debate over the war became the dominant issue in American politics. The label has become shorthand for “pro-war conservative.” Case in point: of the list of so-called neoconservatives that Buchanan provided in his letter to The New Republic, only four — Norman Podhoretz, William Bennett, Charles Krauthammer, and Kristol p`ere — are actual, dyed-in-the-wool neoconservatives.

    It was “Kristol p`ere” (Irving Kristol), in fact, who invented the term neoconservative. Kristol had to come up with a label for the group of liberal intellectuals who became disillusioned with the New Left in the sixties and seventies, and who shortly thereafter left the Democratic party. Neoconservatives were literally “new” conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Let’s not be naive about what is happening with Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am wryly amused at the likely outcome of the trashing of Ron Paul. Enough fair minded Republicans are not going to hold their nose and vote for the establishment choice. They will vote for a third party or stay home. Obama will get the support of all the usual subjects. He won’t lose 2% of any of them. I expect that he will win a second term. Obama unplugged will revert to his core beliefs. If the Republicans cannot win this election, they may very well become a marginal third party.
    The American public will reevaluate what is in their national and personal interest.

    ReplyDelete
  27. .

    Matt Continetti is a dick.

    He gets hung up on the original dirivation of the term neocon and loses sight of reality.

    The whole focus of the Bush 'team' was either sympathetic to or driven by the ideas of these 'second tier' players such as Wolfowich, Feith, and Pearl. These guys were the idea men. They had been promoting these specific ideas for a decade or more.

    You can say Cheney and Rumsfield weren't literally neocons, but if it walks like a duck...

    Others, like Condi Rice, if not neocons where the next best thing. She led the group called 'The Vulcans' that developed George Bush's foreign policy stance prior to the 2000 election. The group included Wolfowich, Pearl, Scooter Libby, Robert Zoellick and others. Cheney though not a member of the group was closely associated with it.

    Dems may not be 'literally' Neocons, but there are plenty who share Condi's vision of 'transformational democracy' as a foreign policy priority.

    9/11 was transformational for Bush. It pushed him to embrace neoconservatism wholeheartedly. No one can deny he had the arrogance. Unfortunately he lacked a brain.

    Obama has merely carried on the vision of GWB. Whether he truly believes in it or if it is the political path of least resistance matters little. It's the end result that counts.

    The fact that the term 'neocon' has morphed from it's original origens to now mean those interventionists who intend to democratize the world and bring the glories of the American way of life to the rest of the world whether it wants it or not, is notable but not unusual. It happens all the time. Look at what has happened to the term 'liberal'.

    Continetti ignores this fact when he says,

    This is the state of American political debate: pundits play rhetorical games and sling mud over nomenclature while interaction with the ideas and facts behind opposing viewpoints is anathematized. Are we rats in a maze — or people with ideas in our heads?

    The pompous ass thinks people don't know what it means to be a neocon as they are defined today. He worries about correct 'nomenclature' and ignores what is important.

    If anyone needs to know what a neocon is try reading up on PNAC or just grab a copy of the Weekly Standard.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  28. .

    Obama unplugged will revert to his core beliefs.


    This is the danger the right doesn't seem to recognize. Obama is where he is because he moved towards the center. The GOP refuses to do the same even though it will cost them the election.

    If the right is upset with Obama now, imagine what state they will be in if he wins and no longer needs to worry about reelection.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  29. Irony alert: Michael "Savage" Wiener labels Ron Paul a hater and a lunatic.

    Occupy Wall Street allocates $100,000 for bail money (Left's answer to the Tea Party, heh)

    Occupy Charlotte burns the American flag.

    2011: 5 million people lost their jobs. 3 million lost their homes. Gas went over $3.50 per gallon. It's called a recovery by Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa): "To paint an image of what I think it looks like under a Ron Paul presidency, it would be Iranian nuclear missiles placed in Cuba and Katyusha rockets in Tijuana."

    ReplyDelete
  31. Here's Penn Jillette on religion and politics

    He likes Obama because he may be lying about being religious.

    You can thank me later.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Probably what you would have would be an end to the idiotic, and economically destructive "Embargo/Sanctions" on Cuba, and an accomodation with Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This is what an AIPAC full court press looks like.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yes, T, it certainly is. They seem to have called in every chit they've ever issued.

    ReplyDelete
  35. .


    Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)



    Steve was also the guy who told us Al Queda would be "dancing in the streets" of America if Obama was elected president.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  36. .

    Does the boy tend towards hyperbole? Or is he just stupid?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  37. :)

    They be a'dancin' alright.


    It's called the "Dodge a Drone Boogaloo."

    ReplyDelete
  38. VANCOUVER — Crack addicts in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside have started receiving free crack pipes as part of a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority harm reduction strategy aimed at curbing the spread of disease.

    DES MOINES, Iowa -- Newt Gingrich says he has killed a chapter on climate change in a post-election book of essays about the environment. But the intended author of the chapter, who supports the scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change, says that’s news to her.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ron Paul hasn't been trashed. With his rise in the polls he has been scrutinized for the first time. There's lots of stuff about him that has come out recently that many people, like me for instance, had no idea about. I had never heard of those newsletters, nor some of his wilder musings about the Jews, for instance. What's happened is that the press has been doing it's job and the man is bonkers, totally, and it shows.

    Why the republicans allowed him to run in the caucuses and primaries of their party which he had resigned from years ago is beyond me.

    (and as for me I'd add anybody who named their kid after Ayn Rand is nuts too)




    b

    ReplyDelete
  40. :) It's always disgusted me for some reason, people that hang some famous name on their kid. And a religious name is the worst. But that's just me. Even designation by a numeral would be better.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ron Paul Ignores the Media

    First Ron Paul complains that the media is ignoring him, then he ignores the media. While his rivals were blitzing cable TV this week, Paul gave only one interview—to Bloomberg TV last night. The sudden drop off came after a series of interviews where CNN and Fox reporters asked him about racist statements in his newsletters. On the trail, reporters complain Paul hasn't been taking questions. Nevertheless, Paul has continued to blast the mainstream media, getting cheers from his audience on Thursday when he said the media didn't cover his criticism of the Defense Authorization Act.


    Politico

    The old fart is afraid his mouth will wander off and say something untoward, like, maybe, the Jews did the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, or the riots ended when the welfare checks came out, or that the border fence is designed to wall us in.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  42. If Sarah Palin had said in a debate that the border fence was designed to wall us in there would be no end to the hooting and the ha-ing heard around here, much of it coming from the management.

    But then, she's intelligent,and not given to conspiracies.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  43. We know all that Bob. We don't care. It's a vote to Protest the "All War, All the Time" foreign policy of the present-day Republican Party.

    ReplyDelete
  44. .

    If Sarah Palin had said in a debate that the border fence was designed to wall us in there would be no end to the hooting and the ha-ing heard around here, much of it coming from the management...


    But it would have been over in a day bobbo. Or, at least, until you or Rufus brought her up again.

    You have been fixated on this Paul thing for over a week now. It reminds of your crusade to get WiO instituted as a bartender. At the time, most thought you were merely on a bender. Now, with this Paul thing, it's hard to say.

    I like some of Paul's ideas. Others are just plain weird. He, IMO, is not qualified to be president. I doubt there is one person here that thinks he has a chance of becoming president. He is looking good in Iowa because there you will have around 100k extremely conservative whack-jobs deciding the results.

    You don't like Ron Paul. We get it.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  45. Them chickenhawks must have tricked the republican party Rufus.
    It's amazing that Obama has not implemented Paul's foreign policy vision.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Q, I don't believe I've "brought Palin up" since she withdrew from the race.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ron Paul:
    end obamacare, eliminate support for big government

    There goes the rufus and ash vote down the crapper

    ReplyDelete
  48. The only decision that I have arrived at, is the Republican Party will not automatically get my vote. I will not vote for Romney, Perry or Gingrich.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Then, Deuce, you will not be voting the whole of the Republican line, in November.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I didn't bring Ron Paul up.

    The title of the post is "Why The Neocons Hate Ron Paul"

    By the way, a Pleroma on the Rocks for everyone tonight. Happy New Year.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  51. Rufus, now that the crapper has been demoted for making death threats, it doesn't seem so important to me that WiO be up there. I just wanted some balance, for what it's worth.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  52. I read Hotel rooms are going for over $1,000/night in Las Vegas right now. We can spend our Obama $1,000 dollar tax cut right there, tonight.

    Big fireworks show, too.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  53. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The "Anyone but Paul" attitude.

    Well, then you stand for:
    Mandates upon individuals to purchase health insurance.

    Opacity at the Federal Reserve.

    Continued military intervention in Korea, Japan, Italy, Germany, Poland, England, Iceland, Greenland, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Kenya, Egypt, Israel, Yemen, Nigeria, Pakistan and Iran.

    Good to know, that you're good to go!

    ReplyDelete
  55. :) Cain't anybody read, anymore? I didn't mention Wio.


    Okay, Here Goes!

    Laydies, and Gennulmin. A Toast. To You.

    You have kept me occupied,

    and away from any type of useful endeavor, for another year.

    For This, I Thank You. :)



    Babydoll has turned your names over to homeland security, though.

    just thought you'd want to know. :)

    ReplyDelete
  56. Uganda, too.

    Oct 14, 2011 – US President Barack Obama says he is sending about 100 US soldiers to Uganda to help regional forces battle the notorious Lord's Resistance ...

    The reasoning for deploying these US troops, to encourage Uganda to continue its military deployment into Somalia, in pursuit of Islamoid terrorists, there.

    Remember the thread regarding the culture of unreported rape?

    Matt Brown, a spokesman for the Enough Project, a U.S. group working to end genocide and crimes against humanity, especially in central Africa.

    "The U.S. doesn't have to fight al-Qaida-linked Shabab in Somalia, so we help Uganda take care of their domestic security problems, freeing them up to fight a more dangerous — or a more pressing, perhaps — issue in Somalia.


    Ms Bachmann rejects this policy prescription, she rejects that al-Q linked Shabab is a national security interest.

    "He did it unilaterally and he waited till everybody was out of Washington this afternoon to say what he did," she said.

    "When it comes to sending our brave young men and women into foreign nations, we have to first demonstrate a vital American national interest," she said. "If there's anything that we should have learned in the last 10 or 12 years, it's that once you send your troops in, it's very difficult to get them out. Very difficult."

    ReplyDelete
  57. After reading what Bachmann said, I predict that a few of the Republicans might be starting to "wake up."

    ReplyDelete
  58. Re: Predictions for 2011 (Post Facto). How did he do?

    DR is 32.5% on this thread

    Without him, what would you be :-D))))

    Happy New Year

    Israel 13
    Nutters 0

    ReplyDelete
  59. So the Anyone but Paul contingent support:

    "I also will put every military option we have on the table to deal with an Iran that seeks a nuclear weapon.”

    Even when she says ...

    "When it comes to sending our brave young men and women into foreign nations, we have to first demonstrate a vital American national interest," she said.

    "If there's anything that we should have learned in the last 10 or 12 years, it's that once you send your troops in, it's very difficult to get them out. Very difficult."


    Complete with the knowledge that the military option, with regards committing to military intervention in Iran because ...
    once you send your troops in, it's very difficult to get them out. Very difficult."

    ReplyDelete
  60. I guess Uganda is not real big on the AIPAC "to do" list. :)



    cancel that last prediction. :)

    ReplyDelete
  61. Has Anybody seen any recent polling out of S. Carolina?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Please take your predictions to the next thread. To all of you , none excluded, I have enjoyed another year of lively discussion and argument. My best wishes for continued health to all. See you next year.

    ReplyDelete
  63. .

    The "Anyone but Paul" attitude.

    Well, then you stand for: blah, blah, blah...



    More nonsense rat. It doesn't mean any of that and you know it.

    Happy New Year.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  64. .

    Bobbo, you are making progress.

    I predict that next year you will break through, have a spiritual transformation, and vote for Obama.

    Happy New Year.


    Also the same holiday greetings to you Ruf.

    By the way, you may not have mentioned Palin but I'll bet you were still thinking of the legs and them red shoes.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  65. .

    And Happy New Years to the rest of the Boys in the Band and the Management.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  66. I don' always tells whut I'm thinkin'.

    ReplyDelete
  67. But, most of you seem to have me pretty well figgered out by now. :)

    ReplyDelete
  68. So, in Libya, the US assisted its NATO partners in their support of a tribal revolt against the terror sponsoring regime of Colonel Q.

    The generational enemy of the United States, a terrorist once targeted by Ronald Reagan, deposed.
    No overt US footprints in the sand.

    In Somalia, the Al Shabab terrorists. those Islamoids were running rampant. The US public has little sympathy nor patience for Somalia. There is no thirst for revenge raging through the body politic. "Blackhawk Down" is now "Down the Blackhole".

    The US, by supporting regimes in Uganda and Kenya, obtain a military option in Somalia, through proxies.
    A major force multiplier, for US.

    "Anyone but Paul" seems to have missed the essence of their own wisdom.

    "If there's anything that we should have learned in the last 10 or 12 years, it's that once you send your troops in, it's very difficult to get them out. Very difficult."

    ReplyDelete
  69. .

    Israel 13
    Nutters 0




    13 X 0 = 0


    And let's face it, the claims that Israel's attack was anything but intentional is really an insult to Israel itself.

    This wasn't like a friendly fire incident where the coordinates on the artillery was off. It was not some single drone attack on the wrong target. The attacks were spread out over hours.

    They took place on a clear day in the middle of the ocean on a boat cruising at about 5 knots. The boat carried oversized identification numbers and the American flag. It had radio antennas, radar, and sonar equipment up the ying yang. The attacks involved waves of Israeli spotter planes, helicopters, torpedo boats, and jets.

    Let's face it, if the Israelis were too stupid to to recognize the Liberty they are just too stupid to be allowed to play with guns.

    But thanks for bringing up the subject anyway.

    .

    ReplyDelete