02-02-2013, 10:16 PM
Graham is a POS. Hagel's not perfect but he's better than anyone else in that position over the last 18 years. I'll take a Pat Buchanan and ANY prior George Bush Chicken Hawk conservative who never served.
AKA Graham, or Boehner, or Kristol
Boy you guys sure are getting your panties in a wad cause you think the jig is up and the parties over for your buddies at TWS. Too bad...so sad...you had 10 years to get it right.
Obama's probably gonna drop Hagel anyways in the next weeks cause the fire is too hot from both sides so chillax.Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown
The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
02-03-2013, 02:01 PM
As a student at Georgetown University, Buchanan was in ROTC but did not complete the program. He received his draft notice after he graduated in 1960. However, the District of Columbia draft board exempted Buchanan from military service because of reactive arthritis, classifying him as 4-F.
I guess that makes him a chicken-dove.
Meanwhile, you had nothing good to say about John McCain, or any of the other vets who object to Hagel on the merits, or lack of same. Hagel has been on the wrong side of every national security issue for the last decade. He opposes designations of terrorist groups as terrorist groups, seeks to appease enemy states and undermine allies
“Iran doesn’t frighten me and I don’t think it should frighten the American people. They don’t have a bomb. They haven’t made a decision to build one…and the Israelis have 300 atomic bombs. Who presents the existential threat to whom?” http://www.nationalreview.com/media-...rael-noah-glyn
“If you want to know ethnicity and power in the United States Senate, 13 members of the Senate are Jewish folks who are from 2 percent of the population. That is where real power is at..” (“The McLaughlin Group,” Feb. 2, 2007)
“Israel and its Fifth Column…seek to stampede us into war with Iran.”
From a July 2008 column
"If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York declares this 'is not a fight between Catholics and Jews,' he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith.
2010: “If [Elena] Kagan [President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court] is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this Democrats’ idea of diversity?”
-- Column, “Are Liberals Anti-WASP?” May 14, 2010
“They charge us with anti-Semitism…The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a 'passionate attachment' to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's good for Israel is good for America.”
-- Neo-Conned! Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq,
"The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody."
- NY Post, March 17, 1990 (from a column about the trial of accused Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk)
"In the late 1940’s and 1950’s…race was never a preoccupation with us, we rarely thought about it….There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The ‘Negroes’ of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours."
- Right From the Beginning
2006: “Today, we find such world views repellent. But, if racism means a belief in the superiority of the white race and its inherent right to rule other peoples, American history is full of such men. Indeed, few great men could be found in America or Europe before WWII who did no accept white supremacy as natural.”
-- State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, P. 85
In these statements, Buchanan accuses Jews of disloyalty to the US, sabotage of US foreign policy and manipulation of our government. He also claims that segregation was no big deal, that white supremecism is an acceptable belief and that the Nazis didn't murder Jews in vans. I, and everyone else here, wants to know if you believe these statements, or if you need to go the way of Gator and the Stormfronters who periodically show up here.
02-03-2013, 03:15 PM
Labe is what liberals believe what conservatism is. In fact, he's a caricature of a conservative. Not to mention that he and his fellow Paulbots are responsible for Obama getting elected to a 2nd term.The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
02-03-2013, 04:24 PM
" To the world you are just one more person, but to a rescued pet, you are the world."
"A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!"
Crocodiles are easy. They try to kill & eat you. People are harder. Sometimes they pretend to be your friend first.” Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter
02-04-2013, 10:31 AM
Last edited by Odysseus; 02-04-2013 at 10:38 AM.
02-06-2013, 11:14 AM
And still no response from Molon. What a surprise.
02-06-2013, 01:33 PM
Here's some links about the little Trotsky Marxists. You'll believe what you wish to believe.
Bill Kristol on gun control
Bill Kristol said this morning that he is OK with more gun control as long as it doesn’t cross over into handguns and hunting rifles because he believes people don’t have a right to ‘semi-automatic rifles that can shoot 100 bullets at a time
Trotsky their hero
“I regard myself to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory - Irving Kristol
The Trotskyist pedigree of neoconservatism is no secret; the original neocon, Irving Kristol, acknowledges it with relish
Preemptive war beliefs and influence
announcement of a broad preemptive doctrine
SPREADING DEMOCRACY IS NOT THE ANTIDOTE TO JIHADIST TERRORISM; THERE ARE NO SHORT CUTS "TO THE END OF HISTORY."
Rejects limited government in favor of Central planning
Irving Kristol once boasted that neoconservatism is the first variant of twentieth-century conservatism that is “in the ‘American grain.’” The implication of this extraordinary claim is that Goldwater conservatism—with its proclaimed attachment to individual rights, limited government, and laissez-faire capitalism, and its rejection of the modern welfare-regulatory state—is somehow outside the American grain. The neoconservatives are and always have been, by contrast, defenders of the post–New Deal welfare state. Not surprisingly, the neocons support, in the words of Ben Wattenberg, a “muscular role for the state,” one that taxes, regulates, and redistributes—and, as we shall see, one that fights. This, apparently, is what it means to be in the American grain.
The little Marxists are Fine with Raising Taxes
At home in the Democratic party
The fact is that the neocon passion for Hillary may not be as outlandish as it seems at first glance. For one thing, Hillary was instrumental in getting Madeleine Albright appointed secretary of state in 1997, and they remain close friends. Albright is a liberal interventionist of the first order. Her father, Josef Korbel, a former Czech diplomat, was a cold warrior. Albright herself ardently pushed for intervention in the Balkans, first as Clinton’s United Nations ambassador, then, more effectively, as secretary of state. Albright will have the opportunity to weigh in on hot-button foreign-policy issues such as relations with Russia
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-neocons-gone/Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown
The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
02-06-2013, 02:18 PM
And Ody...I've always said that the Paulbots and the Libtards have more in common with each other than they have differences.
This is proving my point.
Hagel is too stupid for words and couldn't put two coherent sentences together...99.9% chance is he does stumble into the office at the Pentagon he'll do more harm than good...but hey people like Lube and Obama are gonna support him cause he hates Israel suffers from BDS and gets an endorsement from the Islamofascists in Tehran.In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005
Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid
To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
02-07-2013, 12:29 PM
LIke I've said before. I don't support Hagel.
I am just tickled to watch the former Clowns in Fukuyama land going apeshit that they are losing their grip on foreign policy in favor of what preceded them.
But I do have one question.
Why is that so many are supporting the guys beating Hagel up? You know......people like McCain, Graham, Kristol supposed "Conservatives" who are apologists for arming and empowering terrorist organizations that are targeting the US?
Support of Libyan rebels
Libyan Rebel commander admits al qaeda links
US arming of rebels falls into Jihadist hands
Support of Syrian intervention and supporting rebels
US arming Syrian rebels
"With his Senate colleagues Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, McCain released a statement calling for “relief from Assad’s tank and artillery sieges. . . . Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army "
Syrian rebels ties to Al Qaeda
Syrians Rebels torture Christians
Syrian Rebels praise Bin Laden
Bill Kristol praises Obama for his foreign policy.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/30/bi...-libya-policy/Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown
The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
02-07-2013, 03:29 PM
WALLACE: Bill, let’s look at this from the Republican point of view. Will Republicans -- should Republicans change or modify their strong opposition to gun control, especially -- not the right to bear arms but, especially on the question of these weapons of mass destruction? You know, as I say, the handgun that could fire five bullets in a second, the magazines 100 rounds. Should Republicans consider giving on that issue?Now, does calling for an honest debate equal advocacy of a gun ban? Does looking at mental health issues (as the NRA and other pro-gun groups have proposed) constitute advocacy of a gun ban? Yes, he is further to the left on this issue than you and I, and he admits it. I will concede this, especially since you made the case without going to Pat Buchanan's loons, but he's not exactly in the same league as the Democrats who are genuinely seeking to ban guns.
KRISTOL: I think Republicans and everyone else should take a serious look at what might work. And I think the speaker could well ask the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings, but hold serious hearings, about what would work. Don’t do something symbolic like the assault weapons ban, which did no good and made everyone feel good and ended up evaporating and couldn’t be sustained even in a Democratic -- wasn’t restored when the Democrats controlled everything in 2009, 2010.
So I’m totally open to having serious -- and there’s a lot of social science research on gun control. I don’t think it’s very favorable to most efforts of gun control, and I think -- but everything has to be on the table, too. Is it sensible to have gun- free zones? Maybe elementary -- maybe the money would be better spent having security guards than having, you know, new background checks in a case where this -- the purchase of the guns in this case passed background checks.
Connecticut’s a pretty liberal state. I believe the Democratic Party controls all the branches of government in Connecticut. They chose not to ban the things we’re talking about, I guess, right? They could have, couldn’t they?
EASTON: State laws are useless. I mean, you can order things online now. I mean, it’s, sort of...
WALLACE: He did buy them in the state...
KRISTOL: I’m just saying, let’s have an honest debate. Let’s have a debate about privacy laws and mental health. But I do think the Republican Party shouldn’t be in the position of saying you can’t even discuss this, and I think the speaker could easily ask, since they control one house of Congress -- Senator Reid could do this on the other side, and so they’d have serious hearings about the legal issues and the public policy issues.
Is it then perhaps my radical past, now so firmly disowned, that bothers me and makes CCNY unhallowed ground? I think not. I have no regret about that episode in my life. Joining a radical movement when one is young is very much like falling in love when one is young. The girl may turn out to be rotten, but the experience of love is so valuable it can never be entirely undone by the ultimate disenchantment.That doesn't sound like he's still a radical, only that he doesn't entirely regret having been one in college. Lots of conservatives started out liberal and grew out of it (Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, etc.). My parents were Democrats (my mom's death ended her party activities, although I'm sure that she still votes for them), but that doesn't make me one. Since then, Irving Kristol has renounced his leftist roots, and not just recently. Claiming that Bill Kristol is a Trotskyite now because his father was one when he was a teenager amounts to slander.
This approach begins from certain neoconservative premises: first, that U.S. policy and the international community more broadly need to concern themselves with what goes on inside other countries, not just their external behavior, as realists would have it; and second, that power — specifically American power — is often necessary to bring about moral purposes. It also draws on a neoconservative principle that neoconservatives seemed to have forgotten in the lead-up to the Iraq war: namely, that ambitious social engineering is very difficult and ought always to be approached with care and humility. What we need, in other words, is a more realistic Wilsonianism that better matches means to ends in dealing with other societies.
Realistic Wilsonianism differs from classical realism by taking seriously as an object of U.S. foreign policy what goes on inside states. To say that nation-building or democracy promotion is hard is not to say that it is impossible or that is should be scrupulously avoided. Indeed, weak or failed states are one of the biggest sources of global disorder today, and it is simply impossible, for reasons relating both to security and to morality, for the world's sole superpower to walk away from them. Neither realists nor neoconservatives have paid sufficient attention to the problem of development over the years, nor have they focused on parts of the world like Africa or Latin America where development is most problematic (except, of course, when countries in these regions become security threats).
Realistic Wilsonianism differs from neoconservatism (and Jacksonian nationalism) insofar as it takes international institutions seriously. We do not want to replace national sovereignty with unaccountable international organizations; the United Nations is not now nor will it ever become an effective, legitimate seat of global governance. On the other hand, we do not now have an adequate set of horizontal mechanisms of accountability between the vertical stovepipes we label states—adequate, that is, to match the intense economic and social interpenetration that we characterize today as globalization….
Now, I happen to disagree with a number of his premises, but nowhere does he say that we should casually overturn regimes because they might someday be a threat. That is a self-serving misinterpretation of his position, as demonstrated by Peter Lawler, whose article (which you cited) directly contradicted your summaries of his arguments and as well. Preemption is necessary when another nation is an imminent threat. Lawler correctly identifies the Iranian leadership as "deranged tyrants", and rejects treating them as rational actors. He also refers to your arguments regarding Straussian plots as a slander. I don't find your reasoning compelling on this, and your links either undermine your case or are not credible.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|