Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45
  1. #11  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,771
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    I see Lube's John Birch society underpinnings are beginning to show. Looks like his views on Israel and Morsi's in Egypt are one and the same.

    Wonder how he feels about the attack on the USS Liberty?
    strawman, red herring. You gonna go down the anti'-semite road too? Haven't seen this much Political correct BS since I was in the DUmmie threads... LOL.



    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    strawman, red herring. You gonna go down the anti'-semite road too? Haven't seen this much Political correct BS since I was in the DUmmie threads... LOL.
    Oh? Objecting to a blatant anti-semite and enabler of terrorists being put in charge of the DOD is now Politically Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    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
    So, that means that John Kerry is okay with you, too? After all, he served. And Buchanan's military record is rather skimpy, as in nonexistent:

    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    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.
    This has nothing to do with TWS, and everything to do with national security. Buchanan and his fellow doves are so animated by anti-Israel bias that they cannot see the common threat that we face from the resurgent jihad. Even Peter Lawler, who you claimed as an intellectual guide, specifically refutes you arguments, calling them "stupid and slanderous." He understands that we cannot deal with Iran the way that we dealt with the Soviets, because, as he put it so eloquently, "They think and act as deranged tyrants."

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Obama's probably gonna drop Hagel anyways in the next weeks cause the fire is too hot from both sides so chillax.
    Oh, right, because Obama, after having been thwarted in putting up one anti-Semitic failure, is going to suddenly go back to a Reaganesque foreign policy, maintain defense capabilities and become a staunch defender of American interests. Do you realize how silly you sound when you turn this into an attack on a defunct think tank and an editor who has never had the influence that you claim? Or when you defend Pat Buchanan's crazy anti-Semitic, racist rants? And we're still waiting to hear you explain how PNAC advocated Trotskyism, or whether you agree with Buchanan's rants about Jews exercising too much influence. And you made the outrageous argument that we were tarring Buchanan unfairly by not examining the veracity of his statements. Okay, fine, here's your chance to defend him. Which of these statements do you consider factual, and why?


    “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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,486
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Administrator SaintLouieWoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Sarasota Florida
    Posts
    40,817
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    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.
    Add to that he shares the same list of hatreds and prejudices of Gator. I've been waiting for him to post on national watermelon day. That would be the icing on the proverbial cake in the list of shared somewhat peculiar beliefs.
    http://http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/SarasotaRepub/83069bcc.png

    " 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!"

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    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 Paulbots didn't make up enough votes to cost the election, but it would have been nice if they'd turned out and at least demonstrated that they weren't idiots.

    Quote Originally Posted by SaintLouieWoman View Post
    Add to that he shares the same list of hatreds and prejudices of Gator. I've been waiting for him to post on national watermelon day. That would be the icing on the proverbial cake in the list of shared somewhat peculiar beliefs.
    I won't say that he shares the full list of prejudices, but he's getting awfully close with his defense of Buchanan. I really want to see what he has to say about those statements, beyond the wild charge that we aren't reading them for their inherent "truth".
    Last edited by Odysseus; 02-04-2013 at 09:38 AM.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    And still no response from Molon. What a surprise.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    And still no response from Molon. What a surprise.
    lol.......Some of us actually have to work.

    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
    http://www.therightscoop.com/bill-kr...ets-at-a-time/

    http://deadlinelive.info/2012/07/23/...ssault-rifles/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1694537.html

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=William+kristol+on+gun+control


    Trotsky their hero

    “I regard myself to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory - Irving Kristol
    http://www.pbs.org/arguing/nyintelle...krystol_2.html

    The Trotskyist pedigree of neoconservatism is no secret; the original neocon, Irving Kristol, acknowledges it with relish
    http://www.theamericanconservative.c...purest-neocon/


    Preemptive war beliefs and influence

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

    http://books.google.com/books?id=CNy...%20war&f=false


    announcement of a broad preemptive doctrine
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5239049

    SPREADING DEMOCRACY IS NOT THE ANTIDOTE TO JIHADIST TERRORISM; THERE ARE NO SHORT CUTS "TO THE END OF HISTORY."
    http://www.digitalnpq.org/articles/g...ancis_fukuyama





    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.
    http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/03/...tism-unmasked/

    http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservati.../dp/1566632285

    http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/19...on-afghan-war/

    http://www.historycommons.org/projec...oconservatives


    The little Marxists are Fine with Raising Taxes

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...calls-for.html





    At home in the Democratic party

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson

    http://www.correntewire.com/thoughts..._neoliberalism

    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    And still no response from Molon. What a surprise.
    I'm not. Like the DUmmies when you stump them with facts...and they have to run back to their hive to get more talking points...Lube is doing that with his fellow Paulbots.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,771
    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
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...go_554818.html
    http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/conten...olence-libya-1

    Libyan Rebel commander admits al qaeda links
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...eda-links.html

    US arming of rebels falls into Jihadist hands
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/wo...pagewanted=all


    Support of Syrian intervention and supporting rebels
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...in_633413.html

    US arming Syrian rebels
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...atrick-brennan

    "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 "
    http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles...in_633413.html


    Syrian rebels ties to Al Qaeda
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/wo...anted=all&_r=0

    Syrians Rebels torture Christians
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226545322022


    Syrian Rebels praise Bin Laden
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=vsq5ZRir-0k

    Bill Kristol praises Obama for his foreign policy.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...by_555622.html

    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    lol.......Some of us actually have to work.
    Somehow, you found time for other posts. However, you continue to evade the central question, which is whether or not you agree with Buchanan's bigoted comments. Meanwhile, let's address the questions that you didn't duck:

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Here's some links about the little Trotsky Marxists. You'll believe what you wish to believe.
    While you will do the same. The difference is that I will read your links, and will actually know what is contained in my replies.

    Let's look at the full text of his comments:
    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?


    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...

    (CROSSTALK)

    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Trotsky their hero

    http://www.pbs.org/arguing/nyintelle...krystol_2.html

    The Trotskyist pedigree of neoconservatism is no secret; the original neocon, Irving Kristol, acknowledges it with relish http://www.theamericanconservative.c...purest-neocon/
    It's quite a stretch to say that Bill Kristol is a Trotskyite because his father was one in college. From the PBS article:

    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.

    With the exception of Fukuyama, you are quoting persons who have an ax to grind against what they define as neo-cons. The Wikipedia article is riven with assumptions and editorial comments masquerading as facts, but the Fukuyama excerpt contains his actual words, and must be addressed. Here is his mission statement regarding his approach to foreign policy:

    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •