From Eric Dondero:Ron Paul appeared on Larry King Live on Monday night, along with Co-guests humorist Ben Stein and ironically Rep. Sheila Jackon-Lee of Houston. The subject: The Muslim Christmas Bomber.
Stein has been a longtime favorite of cultural libertarians ever since the iconic 1980s hit movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off, where he played the monotonous high school teacher, droning "Bueller... Bueller..."
Stein is a loyal and outspoken Republican. He's been a contributing editor to libertarian/conservative American Spectator, and a regular free enterprise advocate guest on cable business shows. He now hosts a game show on MTV.
So, it's especially ironic that libertarian-leaning Republican Stein would be chosen to go up against another individual often identified as "libertarian" Ron Paul. (Praise for Stein from Libertarian Leanings blog)
The segment quickly turned into a shouting match. Paul called the United States "occupiers," and blamed the US for Muslim attacks. Stein responded by calling Paul an "anti-Semite."
Here's the partial transcript courtesy of PoliticsUSA:
STEIN: Well, that's -- I have never heard anything quite like that in my whole life. What he's saying, basically, is we are doing something wrong by defending ourselves. Look, if these terrorists are trying to kill the government of Yemen, we've got to help defend them. They're our friends. We can't just let al Qaeda run wild. If we try to stop them --Paul also asserted that terrorist AbdulMutallab was motivated by American bombings of terrorist sites in Yemen two weeks ago. However, it's now being learned that AbdulMutallab and his handlers had planned the terrorist act, at least one month ago. Robert Spencer over at Jihad Watch pens this devestating rebuke of Paul's comments on CNN:
PAUL: Why?
STEIN: Why should we stop them? Because they are terrorists and murderers and they're very anti-American.
PAUL: Why are they terrorists?
STEIN: Surely congressman --
PAUL: Why are they terrorists?
STEIN: They're terrorists and murders because they are psychos.
Obama believes essentially the same thing: that the jihad is a response to various actions of the West, which if we stop doing, all will be well. In line with this assumption, Paul apparently thinks that the Flight 253 jihad attack was a response to U.S. airstrikes in Yemen. However, according to an unnamed source in the White House quoted by Jake Tapper at ABC News, the Flight 253 jihadist had set his plot in motion before the airstrike. And it certainly seems that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had his mind on jihad for years.Additionally, yet another terrorist attack with a virtually identical circumstance - syringe and explosive PETN in the passenger's underwear - has just been discovered by the media. It occured 3 weeks ago at the airport in Mogadishu, clearly indicating that both attacks were coordinated by Yemeni Al Qaeda.
Since the spat with Stein, Paul has been receiving a great deal of praise and support from mostly 9/11 Truther blogs, Alex Jones sites, and of course, Lew Rockwell and AntiWar.com.One site JudeoFascism in defending Paul, said that Stein was "playing the anti-Semite card," and noted that Stein:
"is Jewish [and] under psychiatric care."Another popular site among Truthers and Anti-Warists, IncogMan, said the following:
Ron Paul... gets hit with the usual Jew crap... neither of them will say the Jew out loud because they can’t and still get any exposure... The Jew knows the real history and the Jew Question...Phony Al Qaeda CIA/MOSSAD people may have picked-up on this particular idiot Negro [AbdulMutallab]...To be clear, Ron Paul is not an Anti-Semite and would abhor such statements. In fact, Stein has since offered a bit of an olive branch, retracting the "Anti-Semite" accusation in a brief editorial at American Spectator. However, it's quite alarming that individuals such as the fringe bloggers mentioned above, gain inspiration from Paul's anti-intervenionist talk to use for their own racist means.
why don’t we just pull all our troops back home from the Mideast? Let’s do exactly what Ron Paul says we should. And give Israel the finger while we’re at it. How does that sound, America?
Meanwhile, other more mainstream political sites have come to Stein's defense. Blue Collar Blog comments:
At least Ben Stein had enough sense to take it to Congressman Paul.The Nation's #1 Right site HotAir.com hosted by Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey, is more succinct:
I once was mildly enthused by Congressman Paul now I think he's gone over the deep end. He does not understand that Islam is the motivation for the attacks on the United States. And anyone who does not realize that puts our lives in danger by seeking to appease these radicals.
Ron Paul is a "useful idiot."You can see the entire segment of Larry King Live at YouTube.
IMPORTANT EDITOR'S NOTE: The views expressed in this article are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the views of all LR contributors and writers.
DISCLOSURE: I worked for Ron Paul on and off for 15 years, first as his Personal Travel Aide in his 1987/88 Libertarian Presidential campaign, then again briefly in 1992, and then as his Campaign Coordinator in 1995/96 for Congress, and finally as his Senior Congressional Aide, and District Policy Advisor, from 1997 - 2003.
66 comments:
I have not watched the exchange but... Ron Paul is probably closer to the founders than any official in office except for may maybe Justice Scalia. This country has so overplayed the 'take up everyones fight'. Don't you think that just showing up in a country is going to create those who will fight against us? Case in point... if the UN were to one day occupy this country because of an 'emergency', how many of us would then be classified as a terrorists in wanting them the hell out? Give the CIA and special ops back the power to 'eliminate' and less people especially our military will be sent to die.
Yet another Zionist shill wanting to kill Americans for Israel. To hell with you.
I guess "neoconservative" is now a discredited label so you pretend to be "libertarian"
I myself do not believe that support for Israel serves America's national interests any more than support for a strong Mexico (which risks becoming a failed narco-state). And I also despise many who use the "anti-semite" card when discussing foreign policy, much like those who support amnesty for illegal immigrants use the race card by arguing that those who want to control illegal immigration are motivated by racism (the NAACP has used the same tactic against those wanting to ban affirmative action).
However, I nonetheless think that this was a very thoughtful article by Dondero which supports the argument that Ron Paul often reverts to dogmatic diatribes when debating others instead of at least taking the opposition's argument for face value and discussing it whether or not he still agrees with it. Ron, like many people, often refuses to have a two-way conversation with those whom he disagrees with. He's more concerned with preaching than listening.
I would only add though that while Ron's position on foreign policy can be characterized as the extreme end of noninterventionism, there are many in the Republican camp who represent the extreme opposite end of interventionism. And these individuals are not nearly as criticized by the base, even though Ron is probably much better than them on social and economic issues.
My problem is with individuals like Mr. K who think Gary Johnson should be a Democrat because of his foreign policy. But I don't see Mr. K calling out other Republicans who are even worse on economic issues. You know, the ones who voted against their rhetoric, and fueled left-wing arguments that the economic crisis was caused by laizzez faire politics of the right. If you're going to criticize the Ron Paul's for their positions on foreign policy, then please hold the rest of the Republican Party accountable where they have erred on economic and fiscal policy.
P.S. Scalia is not as principled as advertized. The Supreme Court justice closest to the founders is Clarence Thomas. See Gonzales v. Raich for what I'm talking about. But I understand your point.
Hi Dan. A court of either Scalia or Thomas would secure the republic for the next 100 years.
The Israel of 40 years ago did not need America to hold hands with. Our policies have ruined this nation and now every move they make is proceeded by a mother may I.
I do not agree with anyone (except my wife if she reads this) but Ron Paul is a Patriot in my opinion when it comes to constitutional fundamentals. Maybe Paul/Palin... Palin/Paul 2010?
Rattler, you say Ron Paul is closest to the beliefs of the Founding Fathers? Are you talking Thomas Jefferson who called unilateral War on the Islamo-Fascists (back then known as the Barbary Pirates), as President?
Or, maybe you're talking of Ben Franklin who beat the drum for a strong alliance with France, in their ongoing War with Great Britain?
Or, maybe Washington who was a top General in the French-Indian Wars of the 1760s using brutal force to overcome the French and their allies?
You can call the Founding Fathers a great many things. War Wimps is not something that fits in the slightest.
They Sir, would be absolutely appalled by Ron Paul's foreign policy views.
W.T. Mann, I was a Libertarian as far back as I can remember. Not a "NeoCon" bone in my body. My first votes in 1982 were straight Libertarian Party. My first political beliefs where I was raised in Delaware, before I was old enough to vote back in the 1970s were Pro-Libertarian Party.
I come from a firm Libertarian Party background, and remain very much a Libertarian Party person in ideology and practice, though active in the GOP.
Eric, it hardly matters how often you change parties or labels. You're a Zionist warmonger, and it's obvious from your blog that's where you priorities are.
If you support Israel so much, why don't you move there?
Thomas Jefferson stated, "Peace, Commerce and honest friendship with all nations... entangling alliances with none."
It is true there is justification for a strong hand when needed. But haven't we escalated to being a part of everyones business in this world? Paul may be an extreme but we need to swing the balance back to taking care of the homeland.
Enjoying the conversation and I will be the first to admit to not knowing it all. My opinions can sway but not my principles.
Rattler, I'm quite impressed. That's a level-headed position, and one that I respect.
My friend, you're fully welcomed here at Libertarian Republican. Come back often, and add us to your Daily Favorites.
Nice to make your acquaintance friend.
W.T. I'm actually quite Italian in my heritage, and outlook on life. Not too mention I speak fluent Italian.
If it's anywhere besides the US, it's Italy for me.
Molti Grazie per tutto senore!
You are already on my blog role. That is what drew me to you. Wishing you... and us all, a better 2010. Happy New Year
Ron Paul's belief system is just sad. How can this otherwise principled man [on economic matters] buy into the "we are over there" reason for Islamic extremists flagrant assault on western civilization.
Paul should read The Brussels Journal, and other European right periodicals and dailies to see what is happening with Islamic takeover of Europe by Jihadists
I wanted to believe in this man, but he lost me during the primaries last year, with his rants about how America is the bad guy. Screw intellectualism, let's get back to plain ol' common sense!
I am just wondering what exactly IS Libertarian about this site. All I see is the same tired neo-conservative lap dog media shilling.
I'll call Ron Paul wrong all day long, but what he isn't is more important to me.
Ron Paul isn't a duplicitous, piece of shit scumbag liar.
I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Ron Paul over any democrat partisan any day.
I think he's sort of nutty, but he isn't a sneaky piece of communist shit.
Ron Paul's problem is that he's an absolutist on all the wrong issues.(and for all the wrong reasons)
Happy New Year,
Chu
Ron Paul has associated himself with some very questionable individuals. Any chance I was going to support him for the presidency vanished when the racist newsletters were released.
I know Rockwell penned them (that man clearly suffers from a mental disorder, as do his compatriots). However, Ron Paul never did enough in my mind to disavow the content in those letters that bore his name. He should have done a "Rev. Wright" to Rockwell, and completely disassociate himself from Rockwell and his sycophants.
That was Congressman Paul's moral failing.
PAUL: They're terrorists because we're occupiers
That is precisely the kind of naïveté that is going to get us all killed. What Islamic nation-state was the United States "occupying" on the morning of September the 11th, 2001?
I was just walking to school in Manhattan that morning, I don't recall taking up arms against a Muslim that morning.
Yes I know, we had women soldiers desecrating holy sites in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War by their mere presence, and we "occupied" Iraq during that same conflict attempting to liberate Kuwait as its people (Muslim, by the way) were being raped and pillaged by the Hussein regime.
I don't formulate my geopolitical views based upon Bin Laden's psychopathic rants, nor do I believe we should base our nation's foreign policy on what does or does not 'offend' him.
I know the blowback theory, and if we withdrew from the entire Middle East tomorrow, they would continue to smash our planes into our buildings with impunity because we are infidels that need to be converted to their twisted distortion of Islam, or die.
Correction Ryan. If we withdraw from the Middle East, the Radical Islamists would be on my doorstep here in South Texas, launching attacks from Matamoros on Brownsville/McCallen, from Nuevo Laredo on Laredo, and from Juarez on El Paso, in a matter of months, maybe weeks.
We South Texans would gladly fight back.
But I always thought that my tax dollars were going to fund the United States Military, and that it wasn't my job to fight Islamic Terrorist incursions into Texas, but rather their's.
"Yet another Zionist shill wanting to kill Americans for Israel. "
Yet another self-important, mouth-breathing bigot hoping to be taken seriously.
"they would continue to smash our planes into our buildings with impunity because we are infidels that need to be converted to their twisted distortion of Islam"
Is it a distortion, Ryan? I'm not an authority on the "religion" called Islam, but it occurs to me that Osama bin Bombin' and the other gaggle of subhuman gutter monkeys who live to kill are pretty much experts on what islam is and what it isn't. Were they not, we would be routinely treated to essays, films, commercials, flyers etc. on what the "true" islam is versus the understanding of those who have supposedly "perverted" it.
Personally, I can only conclude that these degenerates are what islam creates. The more devout a mooslim you are, the more likely you are to live in a self-imposed cesspool of evil and hate.
Shit, look at the so called islamic world. It's a backwater, third world dungeon that is able to exist only because of advances the civilized world has made. What would Saudi Arabia be without oil?.. trying to catch up with Borneo, that's what.
Just a thought.
"Ron Paul has associated himself with some very questionable individuals. Any chance I was going to support him for the presidency vanished when the racist newsletters were released."
That speaks volumes about the kind of absolutism I was referring to earlier. It's foxhole logic. Paul will tolerate a neo-nazi in his foxhole if their common enemy is the authority of the Federal Government. Just like the average leftist will gladly share a foxhole with ANYONE whose enemy is America itself.
Paul figures anyone who hates the Fed can't be all bad.
Leftists figure anyone who hates America can't be all bad. Watch Brakabama in action and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Ben Stain is a blot on America.
Win Ben Stein's Apology:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=238859634632
"One site JudeoFascism in defending Paul, said that Stein was "playing the anti-Semite card," and noted that Stein:
"is Jewish [and] under psychiatric care."
I love Ben Stein from the bottom of my heart and his enemies are my enemies, but that is just plain funny as hell.
Eric and everybody else, Ben Stein didn't call Ron Paul an anti-Semite; he called the argument Ron Paul was using (we're “occupiers”) anti-Semitic.
"Are you talking Thomas Jefferson who called unilateral War on the Islamo-Fascists (back then known as the Barbary Pirates), as President?"
False. The First and Second Barbary Wars (somewhat of a misnomer, actually, as they were undeclared and therefore more like police actions) were waged in *defense* against piracy on the high seas. The motivation of the Barbary Pirates was pecuniary - as it is with all pirates - and most assuredly *not* religious. In addition, at the conclusion of both Barbary Wars we A) did not conquer the Barbary States and occupy them, B) we did not engage in nation-building and institute a new government, and C) we concluded hostilities with the *existing governments*, left them in power and maintained relatively peaceful relations with them afterward. Iraq and the Barbary Wars are, quite obviously, not analogous.
"Or, maybe Washington who was a top General in the French-Indian Wars of the 1760s using brutal force to overcome the French and their allies"
Precisely - exactly like Washington. It is in fact the policy of Washingtonian neutrality that Ron Paul advocates, and Ron Paul does not oppose using force in just wars.
"You can call the Founding Fathers a great many things..."
And you can call yourself a great many things, Mr. Dondero, including "libertarian", because you do not really understand what these words mean. You are about as far from "libertarian" or "conservative" as one can get. You are yet another hyper-statist Big Government imperialist with a personal axe to grind after being fired by Ron Paul. You support Big Government's military machine and liberal Big Government projects like Big Government-sponsored democracy and feminism in the Middle East. Your love and trust in Big Government is so deep, so profound that you literally trust Big Government to create nations out of thin air, out of the rubble of our bombing campaigns and those surviving family members we haven't yet blown into bloody chunks. Think about the level of faith one must have in Big Government to believe it can accomplish that. It is the very essence of Liberalism, and the antithesis of Libertarianism.
"If we withdraw from the Middle East, the Radical Islamists would be on my doorstep here in South Texas"
Really. How? Please explain how that would happen. Explain for us all a scenario wherein you yourself would end up heroically battling terrorists on your own doorstep in Texas, and please make it a scenario that would still play out even with the moratorium on all immigration and well-defended border wall with Mexico that all true conservatives support.
Also, over at the Conservative Heritage Times (link below), you asserted that “Every position Ron Paul takes is aimed at the destruction of the State of Israel.”
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=4118
I have asked you repeatedly:
What would that look like, one of Ron Paul’s nefarious schemes becoming a reality and causing the “destruction of the State of Israel”? Could you draw that picture for us? Pick one of Ron Paul’s many alleged “Destroy Israel” plans and walk us through that: 1) Ron Policy Proposal X becomes law. 2) Y happens. 3) Israel meets with utter “destruction”.
What are X and Y, Mr. Dondero? Why are you so reluctant to answer?
Also, Mr. Dondero, over at CHT you asserted "The Muslims don’t hate the Swiss over foreign policy, THEY HATE THE SWISS AND EVERY EUROPEAN BECAUSE OF THEIR WESTERN CULTURE"
I ask you again: How many attacks have Islamic fundamentalist terrorists staged against Switzerland in the past ten years?
S.L., your question is narrow minded. You present a quote you say came from Dondero that mentions Muslims hating not only the Swiss, but every European because of their Western culture. Why don't you ask how many attacks have been staged by Islamic terrorists against Europe in the last ten years?
And in answer to your question, I'd say because the Islamic terrorists know better than to stage an attack on Swiss soil, when you consider the Swiss have one of the highest rates of gun ownership anywhere in the world.
same logic as the far-left with Criminals: "It's Society(i.e. Us) that makes Criminals commit crimes"
I respect Dr. Ron Paul and voted for him during the Republican primary here in Texas.
Having said that, the one issue I disagree with Congressman Paul is his completely unrealistic isolationism when it comes to foreign affairs. In this day and age of multinational corporations and free trade where most of everything we buy is made somewhere else, it would be impossible to avoid ticking off someone as unstable as radical islamofascists are.
I remember back during the Iran/Iraq war when Iraq bombed Iranian cities, Iranians were blaming America for it because the Iraqis were using French jets and since France is a so called ally of th U.S., we were somehow at fault.
I don't see how, with that kind of mentality, "playing nice" is going to win us any peace. They'll hate us for nothing else than we are the largest, wealthiest and militarily most powerful Judeo Christian nation on Earth.
"You present a quote you say came from Dondero that mentions Muslims hating not only the Swiss, but every European because of their Western culture. Why don't you ask how many attacks have been staged by Islamic terrorists against Europe in the last ten years?"
Because that would not be relevant. His assertion is that "Islamofascists", despite the Swiss policy of neutrality, "HATE THE SWISS... BECAUSE OF THEIR WESTERN CULTURE" (not their foreign policy) - which is the reason (Dondero asserts) that they attack the US (not our foreign policy).
If they hate the US and the Swiss because of our "WESTERN CULTURE" and not our foreign policy, then why do they attack the interventionist United States and not neutral Switzerland?
I ask again: How many attacks have Islamic fundamentalist terrorists staged against non-interventionist Switzerland in the past ten years?
"the one issue I disagree with Congressman Paul is his completely unrealistic isolationism when it comes to foreign affairs"
Dr. Paul does not advocate "isolating" the United States. On the contrary, he advocates peace and friendly commerce with all nations. How would that "isolate" the United States?
S.L., it is relevant because Britons, French, Italians, Dutchmen, Belgians, Norwegians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Germans, Greeks (in other words, Europeans) are of the same Western culture as the Swiss. And the Islamo-fascists don't attack because of our foreign policy; they attack because they see us as “infidels”, they see us as unbelievers (in other words, they see us as the enemy). We don't have to do a darn thing to them; all we have to do is choose not to live as followers of their religion, and in their eyes, we become their enemy.
And I again say, your question is narrow minded.
Furthermore, S.L., when you brought up Dondero's quote the second time, you omitted the phrase "AND EVERY EUROPEAN”, even though that particular phrase is the central facet of Dondero's point on why Islamo-fascists launch terrorist attacks, then you repeated your question as to how many staged attacks have been committed by Islamo-fascists against the Swiss.
I ask you this question: Why did you omit the phrase?
"And the Islamo-fascists don't attack because of our foreign policy; they attack because they see us as “infidels”
If "Islamofascists" hate the US and the Swiss because "they see us as infidels", then why do they attack the interventionist United States and not neutral Switzerland?
I ask again: How many attacks have Islamic fundamentalist terrorists staged against non-interventionist Switzerland in the past ten years? Why is it none of you Big Government statists will answer?
S.L. Toddard-
I think it should be clear that most of the sychophants for the Republican party and interventionist foreign policy can't answer such a pointed rational question. We go around dropping bombs, imposing sanctions, staging CIA led coups, and somehow these guys can't put it together why there is so much anger directed at America.
The interventionist neo-con logic is like the playground bully group being shocked that a group of dorks start throwing stones at them after being given wedgies, taken their lunch money and swirlies for years. The proper response to these new found open hostilities from the dorks must be to give more swirlies and forget the regular wedgie it is time to pre-emptively attack other somewhat aggitated dorks with the atomic wedgie before they start throwing rocks.
After all, saying your sorry and beginning a cessation of the theft of lunch money and wedgie giving is unthinkable...that shows weakness.
After all, we can either give them wedgies at school, or we will have dorks to fight in our homes.
If it weren't for Ron Paul, there would BE NO "Libertarian Republican" movement in this country.
A person would only call Ron Paul an anti-Semite when they had no other logical argument against him.
Eric Dondero, you are disgusting. If you were really libertarian, you would be praising your former boss. I will no longer receive my news from this blog.
Oh my gosh. What a statement. If it were not for Ron Paul there would be no "Libertarian Republican movement in this country."
Are you fucking kidding me????
Do you know anything about the Libertarian Republican movement, at all??
I'm the one, the very one, who dragged Ron back into the GOP in 1991/92/93 from the Libertarian Party.
I'm the one who founded the Republican Liberty Caucus in 1990.
I'm the one who sweated my balls off for 5 years, with little if any compensation to build the RLC into a national organization. (Just ask Cliff Thies who was RLC National Chair at the time.)
YOH BUBB, IF IT WERE NOT FOR ERIC DONDERO THERE WOULD BE NO LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY.
Ron Paul has twisted the original meaning of the term Libertarian Republican to mean non-interventionism/isolationism.
We're working to bring it back to its original meaning, and the reason I founded the RLC: STRONG ON DEFENSE.
And by the looks of this blog, our daily visitors and our growing influence within the Republican Party and the major media even, I'm happy to report, it's working.
If "Islamofascists" hate the US and the Swiss because "they see us as infidels", then why do they attack the interventionist United States and not neutral Switzerland?
I ask again: How many attacks have Islamic fundamentalist terrorists staged against non-interventionist Switzerland in the past ten years? Why is it none of you Big Government statists will answer?
Your question, S.L., is irrelevant because it doesn't matter which country “intervenes” and which country is “neutral”; the Islamo-fascists see us as the enemy and will use any excuse to claim justification.
You know the answer to your own question and expect Dondero and me and other so-called statists to answer so you can try and prove your point, however narrow minded it is. I ask you again, Why did you omit the phrase “and any European” from a quote you provided in a previous comment? What was the point of your omission?
Why is it none of you isolationists are willing to answer that question?
"I will no longer receive my news from this blog."
Me neither. heehee
"Your question, S.L., is irrelevant because it doesn't matter which country “intervenes” and which country is “neutral”
Then why do they attack the interventionist United States and not neutral Switzerland?
I would like everyone reading to note that statists like Dondero and his disciples lack the courage and honesty to answer my questions, because they know that to do so will expose them for what they are - proponents of Big Government militarism and imperialism, and enemies of the American republic.
The problem with Islam in Europe is not military, it is demographic. Their worry is not Muslims in far off countries, it is Muslims in their midst. This has been brought about by their suicidal immigration policies and the refusal of the native population to procreate at even replacement rates. The European answer to their Muslim problem is to end Muslim immigration, expel all non-citizen Muslims that are already there, and get rid of their Nihilism and re-embrace the Faith and start having babies. It has nothing to do with bombing Muslim countries. That is, in fact, counterproductive.
Muslims have attacked some European countries that they see as aiding the War effort, such as England and Spain. But they have not attacked neutral Switzerland. Hmmm…
I wouldn’t be surprised if Muslims attacked Switzerland in the future due to their recent vote to ban minarets. I approve of that vote, but I’m sure it has angered Muslims.
The easiest thing for America to do, since we are separated from Muslim countries by a big ocean and don’t have the demographic problem with Islam that Europe has would be to restrict immigration. But this would be too easy. Blood lusting calls to kill all the Muslims and engaging in two minute hates are so much more fun than simple calls to restrict immigration.
Red Phillips
S.L., all you've done is prove how much of an ostrich you and others like you really are. You allow yourselves to be blind and narrow minded because you refuse to examine the true motivations of the Islamo-fascists. As far as you're concerned, if we leave them alone, all will be well; it's one of the most naive things I've ever heard in my life.
And in order to try and affirm your ridiculous claims, you cherry pick the comments of Dondero, myself and others to suit your assertions; otherwise you wouldn't be repeating the same narrow-minded question over and over (and knowing the answer already). What kind of courage is required to answer a question like that? The fact is, you and other like-minded ostriches are seeing statists in the wrong places.
Unfortunately, in your case, it won't matter how much exchanging of words and insults occurs here because you won't be convinced of the motivation of Islamo-fascists. Of course, for Islamo-fascists, our disagreement here doesn't matter to them; they see us and they see only the enemy.
Damn Morgan, you are starting to restore confidence in me with your knowledge and thinking skills. Most twenty-six year old kids in my city are still at the "uh, ahhh, like uh, you knowwwwwww, like uh," well you get the point.
I took a good look at both of your blogs and added them to one of my bookmarks. Good work, young man! And by the way, I noticed you said on your blog, "I'm a proud American with a lot of interests. I'm not sure whether I'm a conservative or a libertarian; I might be a bit of both." Nothing wrong with that. You are in the right place for like minded company.
Regards,
Will
I don't know what was so good about his argument, if it can be called that, it is almost entirely ad-hominem. But that's the type of arguments that people like...it's the Orielly model of debate, yelling and name calling.
This whole post is pathetic, defending Ben Stein's race card play against Ron Paul, it amazes me the lengths people will go to defend the indefensible.
Indeed, Bob, the lengths you're willing to go to defend the indefensible astounds me. Ben Stein never called Ron Paul an anti-Semite, but he did the call the argument Paul was using anti-Semitic.
Ben Stein said it was the same anti-Semitic argument (our being the occupiers) because that same argument has been used by genuine anti-Semites in the past. While Ron Paul's motivation for using that argument is his belief in a foreign policy of non-interventionism, the motivations those actual anti-Semites have for using such an argument is because they have the twisted belief that the Jews run the country, or America is catering to Israel or something to that effect (talk about horse manure!).
Until true patriotic Americans wake up and see Israel and the Zionist Neocons for what they are to the American concept, then this country is royally screwed.
George Washington warned us in his farewell address of 1796:
“A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one nation the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.”
Another thing from this "fringe blogger" is that these disloyal, dual-citizen people use the "anti-Semite" crap all the time. That's their gig man. If that doesn't work, they use the conspiricy ridicule business.
Look at how they use history to shut people up (the sacred holocaust). Should you question one thing, they act like you are a potential concentration camp guard. For real.
Every country they've ever lived ended-up kicking them out. Figure it out!
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sieg Heil to you too, fuckface.
That the best you can do, Joo? I thought you Joos were supposed to be so witty.
Come to my blog and have a say, that is if you got any guts. Which I doubt.
http://incogman.wordpress.com/
Heh. Yeah. That's it. I'm a big ole' hook-nosed heeb. Otherwise, why wouldn't I dig a Nazi like you?
Fuck you, jerkoff.
I find it hilarious when you fucking knuckle-draggers come out of the woodwork to warn everyone about the "dirty joos". Do you know what country has the world's highest per capita output in technological achievement, you retard?
I'll give you a hint. It begins with an I and ends with an L. Maybe the dirty joos stole all that knowledge and creativity from the backward-ass, redneck, child-raping huns that surround them on every side, but odds are way against.
Keep preaching, dipshit, but it will have to be done here. I don't add content to Nazi propaganda sites.
IsraHELL steals technology all the GD time.
I once worked for a company where the tech support got a call from Israel. Only trouble was, the device had yet to be released. Somehow they got their dirty paws on it already. The nervy Jews had a question on how something worked and called the tech support of the company they stole it from!
Talk about chutzpah.
Hell, Jews are always getting popped for spying. Nepotism is also big with you types, as well.
Then you got the unmitagated gall to brag about Jews being "so smart." What a sorry joke.
Americans are indeed waking up to how you people really are. Better learn hebrew, if you don't know it already!
"I once worked for a company where the tech support got a call from Israel."
Fertilizer plants don't have tech support. Try again, fuckface.
Come to my blog and have a say, that is if you got any guts. Which I doubt.
It doesn't take guts to comment on your blog, incogman; you just need to check your brain at the door.
"As far as you're concerned, if we leave them alone, all will be well; it's one of the most naive things I've ever heard in my life"
Yes that indeed is absurdly naive. How many religiously motivated Islamic terrorist attacks were waged per decade against the United States before we began backing Israel, and how many after? How serious was the threat of Islamic terrorism against the United States before we helped the Shah to power, on a scale from one to ten, and how serious is it now? Why do Islamic terrorist groups target the interventionist United States over neutral Switzerland?
"And in order to try and affirm your ridiculous claims, you cherry pick the comments of Dondero, myself"
I did? Where?
Mr. Dondero wrote: "If we withdraw from the Middle East, the Radical Islamists would be on my doorstep here in South Texas"
Is that taken out of context? Was it meant as satire, or to be ironic? Or is he (and are you) serious that if we don't fight them over there etc etc? If Mr. Dondero is serious, I would ask him to please explain how that would happen. Explain for us all a scenario wherein he himself would end up heroically battling terrorists on his own doorstep in Texas, and please make it a scenario that would still play out even with the moratorium on all immigration and well-defended border wall with Mexico that all true conservatives support.
Also, over at the Conservative Heritage Times (link below), Mr. Dondero asserted that “Every position Ron Paul takes is aimed at the destruction of the State of Israel.”
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=4118
Does that take on any other meaning in the context of the paragraph in which it originally appeared, Morgan? If Mr. Dondero stands by that statement, I once again ask him: What would that look like, one of Ron Paul’s nefarious schemes becoming a reality and causing the “destruction of the State of Israel”? Could you draw that picture for us? Pick one of Ron Paul’s many alleged “Destroy Israel” plans and walk us through that: 1) Ron Policy Proposal X becomes law. 2) Y happens. 3) Israel meets with utter “destruction”.
What are X and Y, Mr. Dondero? Why are you so reluctant to answer?
Morgan (is it Mr. Morgan?), as to your question why I ask specifically about Switzerland and not other countries in Western Europe ("Why did you omit the phrase?" etc), it is because the Swiss adhere to a Washingtonian policy of neutrality, which I advocate for these United States. According to Mr. Dondero, "Islamofascists" hate the Swiss and the U.S. equally because we are "Western". If that is the case, then why do Islamic terrorist groups target the interventionist United States over neutral Switzerland?
And would you explain why this question remains unanswered three days after I first asked it?
"otherwise you wouldn't be repeating the same narrow-minded question over and over"
I am forced to repeat the same questions over and over because no one has so far found the integrity - the honesty and intellectual courage - to answer them straightforwardly. This sort of obfuscation and misdirection is actually extremely characteristic of liberals, Wilsonian imperialists, neoconservatives and the rest of the authoritarian Big Government left (of which "Libertarian" Republicans are a subset). Leftists generally are reluctant to be straightforward - it instinctively turns people off.
Chuck:
You should know something on fertilizer, since you spread so much of it.
Note readers, on how Chucky the Clown can only curse away, much like a little petulant baby.
Right, little faggot?
Find error with anything I've stated, my little Nazi pal.
Prove me wrong and I'll concede.
I'm willing to have a conversation with a bigot like you. I'll give you the first move and allow you to tell everyone reading your words how wrong I am.
Your move.
S.L., it's Morgan, and I don't claim the U.S. has been perfect in all actions, but as far as helping the Shah, that had to do with the Cold War (the implications with the Islamo-fascists weren't realized until it was too late).
Terrorist attacks by the Islamo-fascists didn't get underway until in the 60's, and yes, I don't doubt we've been targeted for our supporting Israel, but two points here: What is wrong with Israel existing? Her Arab neighbors have never accepted it, hence the hostilities. The other point is it still wouldn't matter because al-Qaeda and like-minded groups are motivated by their twisted belief in waging holy war on all unbelievers. The fact we support Israel may mean we're a bigger target, but I don't believe withdrawing support from Israel would have either prevented a single terrorist attack on Americans then or change anything now.
As for Dondero's statements, he said every European, and he meant that the Islamo-fascists hate every European because of culture, yet you constantly have gone back to the Swiss in your questions, because you constantly try to put your point up of the Swiss being left alone because they are non-interventionist (and also omitting Dondero's mentioning of every European in previous comments, which to me sounds like cherry picking). Dondero's point, if I'm not mistaken, is that it doesn't matter which Europeans have intervened or not; they hate all Europeans because of culture. With his statements about Ron Paul, it doesn't matter what Paul's motivations are behind his stances (I believe it's non-interventionist), Ron Paul's stances don't help Israel, and in the long run, they won't help us.
I certainly don't want al-Qaeda or any Islamo-fascists on my doorstep, which is why I want to see stricter enforcement of our current immigration laws, continued action against al-Qaeda abroad and continued support of Israel. Letting al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah go on the offensive isn't a good military strategy, and that's what this is, a war. You may not agree, but that's what it is, and that's how the Islamo-fascists will treat it.
I'm not surprised the Swiss hold to a Washingtonian policy of neutrality; over the centuries, a small country like Switzerland hasn't been able to afford to get involved in European matters at the risk of its own destruction. That's how it was for America back in the 1790's; we were a newborn country that couldn't afford to get involved in other countries' affairs. But this isn't the 1790's, and there are other countries (and terrorist groups) that wish to do us harm, and we can't be neutral about that.
I think I've answered your question in this comment about why the US and not the Swiss have been targeted in the last decade by Islamo-fascists, but the reason your question hasn't been answered in the last three days is simple: we all know what the answer is, and we all know what your argument would be from there. I disagree with your opinion that we should be non-interventionist, but that is what your argument would've lead to if the question would be answered, right? Wouldn't you say to the effect that if the non-interventionist Swiss haven't been attacked in the last ten years, maybe we could learn something from the Swiss? Your argument, in my opinion, is nothing more than a straw man argument.
That should also answer the last paragraph of your latest comment. In the end, it boils down to your belief that non-interventionism is the best policy for America to take, and I don't share that belief, just like I don't share the belief that Libertarian Republicans are a subset of the big government left; I find that claim absurd.
Morgan,
I admire your patience.
I'd still like to hear from the anonymous Nazi.
Guess I better post this again:
What in hell is it about "libertarians" misunderstanding of Islamic terrorism? This from Nick Gillispie's piece in todays Wall Street Journal: "While Mr. Abdulmutallab's underwear bomb thankfully did not explode en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, his botched attempt (and the heroic acts of passengers) has reignited one of the decade's most pervasive—and overblown—anxieties: that terrorist violence would become "the new normal," an everyday occurrence in the United States."
Overblown anxieties? There have been over 14,618 Islamic terrorist attacks carried out in the world since 9/11/2001. If my math is correct, that comes out to 4.81 attacks each day. Think about it; that's damn near five nefarious acts per day, inspired by the "religion of peace."
Call me a conservative, neocon or whatever, but political labels are about as meaningful to Islamic extremists, as the label on my underwear. Come to think of it, underwear may have a significant symbolic message to these barbarians.
And This: My nephew has been living in Switzerland since 1989. He is married to a Swiss gal and has three children. By their accounts, they live in fear over the proliferation of Muslims in their country. Not just from attacks that have occurred, but the daunting stares they receive when passing them on the street.
Now Eric, about this piece of shit who calls himself "INCOG MAN"... while Bint could be a pain in the ass, I actually enjoyed her outside of politics. Don't always agree with Tom Knapp, but I am not offended by him in a major way; hell I sometimes check out his web site. Stephen and I got along just fine except when he misconstrued what I said, in which case for the most part apologized. But that brings us to to this racist, scumbag piece of shit, "INCOG MAN." Have you checked out his site. He is the type of motherfucker I would literally blow the kneecaps off from, if her EVER got near my family. It's your blog, but this asshole... asshole is too weak of word, crosses the line, even for a "sailor speak," free speech blog such as yours.
Believe it or not, a lot of Israeli's support Ron Paul
http://israelfinancialexpert.blogspot.com/search/label/Ron%20Paul
Post a Comment