Al Sharpton Falsely Accuses Well-Known Isolationist Pat Buchanan of Supporting Iraq War
With each passing day it is becoming clearer and clearer the brainiacs at MSNBC replaced one blithering idiot in their 6PM time slot with another blithering idiot.
On Wednesday's "Morning Joe," Al Sharpton actually accused well-known isolationist Pat Buchanan of having supported the Iraq war (video follows with transcript and commentary):
AL SHARPTON: The George Bush mistakes were not blocked. The President's grand bargain was blocked. So I don't think you have the same thing. And I, I, I don't think that my friend Pat, who had no problem with Mr. Bush in the middle of two wars he created or going to Texas every chance he got, I think his opinion of the President's vacation, we'll give you some slack.
PAT BUCHANAN: Let me correct you here: I opposed George Bush's war in Iraq. Okay? I was against...
SHARPTON: Oh, you...
BUCHANAN: That's right.
SHARPTON: But you didn't oppose his vacations.
The ignorance on display by someone with his own one-hour national television program was scary.
Is there anyone in America familiar with Buchanan that doesn't know of his opposition to the Iraq war?
Maybe Sharpton should read Buchanan's March 2003 article at the American Conservative wherein he excoriated Bush and "neo-cons" for seeking to "ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest."
Buchanan took a lot of heat for that piece from Republicans at the time, but Sharpton was obviously oblivious.
Fortunately, Buchanan was there Wednesday to set the record straight.
However, what's truly concerning is that on his own program with nobody there to challenge him, Sharpton can say such utter falsehoods with total impunity.
Is a man so obviously unqualified someone the folks at MSNBC want representing their network?
Given their support for the totally inexperienced junior senator from Illinois in 2008, it appears the answer is "Yes."
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Buchanan is not an
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:03am.
Buchanan is not an isolationist.
Satchmo is a troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:19am.
Nothing like a short post from a troll that gets 80% repeated. Only been here a year and still can't respect us enough not to be subjected to his Stupid twice.
Actually, only 43 weeks.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:26am.
Less the three when he was banned = 40.
Maybe
Submitted by Wineguy13 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:34am.
But you can see isolationist from there. ;-)
Not really. He's a
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:37am.
Not really. He's a traditional Republican, as in the days of Sen. Robert Taft, well before the neo-conservatives abandoned the Democrat party and infected the Republican Party.
satchmo LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:45am.
A deliberately antithetical troll. ENJOY YOUR TROLL EVERYONE.
Bob Dole Raps Buchanan as isolationist
+++
Bush State Dept. Official Warns of Popular Isolationism Among Conservatives
Cites Buchanan, Paul and Kucinich in Same Sentence
+++
Bush Attacks Isolationism, Protectionism, Nativism…And Conservatism
By Patrick J. Buchanan
+++
Ron Paul an isolationist Really,
Submitted by topdog729 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:19pm.
Wow all this time Paul has preached trade, trade trade, and stay away from wars. By definition that is a non interventionist.
N.Korea has isolationist policy, They don't intervene and they don't trade.
When will people learn that difference?
Prior to anyone calling anyone anything they should use a dictionary for a definition.
B4 calling the state department, a group of retarded jackasses I did just that!
Funny how well it works ain't it?
Isolationism doesn't have
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 6:16pm.
Isolationism doesn't have anything to do with trade policy, its a position on military and diplomatic involvement. Britain in the 19th century had a free trade policy and isolationist foreign policy (within their colonial holdings) at the same time (referred to as "Splendid Isolation" at the time).
There hasn't even been a country with an "isolationist" trade policy, protectionism isn't designed to stop trade, its designed to protect infant industries and labor. The closest thing has been Japan, because they were only willing to trade with the Dutch, but even that only isolated Japan to trade with the Netherlands and not other European countries.
redfish,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 6:38pm.
not to nit pick but both are correct from what I've come to understand from the context that the word "Isolationism" is used. But first a definition (one of many that are extremely similar):
i·so·la·tion·ism /ˌaɪsəˈleɪʃəˌnɪzəm, ˌɪsə-/ Show Spelled[ahy-suh-ley-shuh-niz-uhm, is-uh-] the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
The definition actually entails both economic and military alliances but it also holds that you can use the term to define either separately as it is used in writing on subjects of both isolationism and non-intervention. However, when limiting the scope of the term isolationism the limiting terms are usually quite specific in the text. Maybe not to the point of defining an economic isolationist or a military isolationist but clear enough that you can use the terms interchangeably with proper context.
Yes he is, he doesn't simply
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 6:27pm.
Yes he is, he doesn't simply believe in non-interventionism, he's argued that in any war where we're not directly attacked, including WWII with respect to Germany, that staying out is the better course. Non-interventionism would merely imply we shouldn't act as a world police force, invade for "peacekeeping" and do covert ops in foreign countries. It does not imply that we do not go to war with the ally of our enemy (Germany as allied with Japan) and do not go to war with those who are fighting our allies (Germany against Britain, France, etc). That position is described as isolationist.
"he's argued that in any war
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:53pm.
"he's argued that in any war where we're not directly attacked, including WWII with respect to Germany, that staying out is the better course."
Yes, that's called non-interventionism, not isolationism. You are incorrect.
Sissy to English Translation ----
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:20pm.
--- Just like leftists destroyed the term Global Warming and had to change it to Climate Change, we sissy paultards have destroyed any meaning of isolationism and had to change it to non-interteliviventionasionismalism or suntin like that, GAWD that is a long wurd to wrap yer tungues around.
You are correct satchmo
Submitted by lrgon on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 9:22am.
Trade
Pat Buchanan is for real free trade not managed trade. Buchanan opposed NAFTA based on the constitutional principle that congress has the power to regulate commerce. The 900 to a 1,000 pages of regulations in the NAFTA "agreement/ treaty can't possible be considered anything but unfree trade. In addition Gingrich and Clinton's betrayal of the people's power in congress was handed it to an unelected body of pin heads that regulate trade in their NAFTA tribunal in a manner that favors Canada and Mexico.
War
It's funny to see the neocons supporting war now that a marxist is in the White House. They get their pink camouflage pajamas all in a knot over his management style of war. Regardless of his snub of congress and the war powers act; regardless of the fact that the Taliban is making money off US taxpayers, they still can't bring themselves to see how much of a sham war is.
Lunk heads like Sharps-ton have more in common with neocons than either side like to admit- both are war lovers and Jesus said non-peacemakers shall not be called His children.
Isolationism
Is a semantics weapon. The word is meant to shut off debate by simply uttering the word. That is why the goofey and the stupid like the "most reverend Al" like to use the word.
rhetoric
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 9:57am.
you were making some decent points until you start with phrases like 'war lovers' or Satchmo's earlier similar comment. Only a handful of people truly like the idea of war and to think otherwise is entirely hyperbole.
Why don't we talk about what war is at least supposed to be and that is a negotiating tool. When negotiations are underway between nations, tribes, families, etc..., there is usually so form of understanding that violence could occur if there is a breakdown in talks. This looming idea is so terrible to both sides (generally speaking) they are compelled to negotiate. War is the breakdown of negotiations. This could be because of hard lines that neither side see as an issue for compromise, the complications of negotiation are too difficult for the participants, one side has an overwhelming advantage to compel a breakdown of negotiations or any of several other reasons (including alliances).
Nearly everyone wants a peaceful conclusion to negotiations without ever resorting to hostilities but that is not always a reality. The reality is that there are people who only negotiate in order to seek advantage for eventual violence. The reality is that there are some, not many but some, that want the violence and indeed need the violence in order to maintain their power and control.
America has made mistakes as has every nation and intentions are not always good enough to erase reality. I don't condone the actions the US has taken nor do I condemn the US for taking actions that at the time seemed reasonable. The world has seen what happens when violent dictators and movements are left to build support and rally those who are looking for a reason they do not have the things they want in their life or looking for someone to blame. It may not be the place of any one nation or one person to decide what is best for all but it is going to happen. Either by clumsy attempts at suppressing potential problems or by waiting until the problem has gained enough strength that it comes to us. Either way is full of potential downfalls and provides ample opportunities for mistakes.
The US has set itself up as the biggest scapegoat the world has ever known and while it is a thankless and irritating role to play it seems very important that the world have a nation to both look up to and to blame - hopefully without escalating to violence but there will always be times when violence will become the only answer.
IMO, if the accusations of F&F are true it is as bad or worse than much of the intervention we have done in foreign nations yet it does not seem to get near the disapproval from the media, liberals or libertarians.
He's correct in regard to war
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:01pm.
He's correct in regard to war lovers, and it is not hyperbole. The neo-conservatives want perpetual war. That's the beauty of the vague, nebulous "War on Terror" or "War on Global Terror" or "War on Terrorism"; instead of identifying a tangible enemy, they get to declare war on an abstraction, which allows them to make any action or actor an enemy - including its own citizens - and allows them to restrict liberties at home. It's ever expanding. Good grief, just look at how many allies have become enemies and that we've gone to war with: Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya...now they've turned their attention to Syria. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Pure crap, Satchmo. Would
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:17pm.
Pure crap, Satchmo. Would you feel better if we called it the "War on Al Qaeda"?? Would that solve your sensitive "tangible enemy" problem? What would it change? Nothing. It just gives that Paulbots more reason to scream about their idiotic conspiracy theories.
For someone who claims he's not with the left, you sound an awful lot like them. People like you are the reason they changed "terrorist attack" to "manmade disaster".
Sad.
No, you're right of course.
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:24pm.
No, you're right of course. The nebulous "War on Terror" hasn't been used as an umbrella to justify expansionism of our government, both at home and abroad. It's pure fantasy.
It is not surprising that given your ignorance of history, especially conservatism and the Republican Party, you would think my position is a leftist one.
"No, you're right of course.
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:30pm.
"No, you're right of course. The nebulous "War on Terror" hasn't been used as an umbrella to justify expansionism of our government, both at home and abroad. It's pure fantasy."
So says the Paulbot. Can you do anything other than regurgitate Ron Paul quotes? Not surprising considering you history of ignorance, lying and cowardice. As far as your position being a leftists one, if it walks llike a duck and quacks like a duck. Know what I mean?
Sissy to English translation ---
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:22pm.
The neo-conservatives want perpetual war...
Sissy to English translation ---
The Jooooz want perpetual war....
Who are the neo-conservatives
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:37pm.
by name?
And terrorism is an abstract concept? So you mean that it doesn't really exist?
Personally, I don't like the use of the word "terrorism" relative to our current military operations. Same for "insurgents". We use these words because they are terms that the average person can identify with, relating back to 9/11. You seem to making the mistake that just because these are the terms used, they are an accurate or literal representation of the operations in play. Of course, you fall for that regarding the "war on drugs" too. I suppose that when something is so obviously beyond your comprehension, it's easier for you to identify with it on the simplest and often most unrepresentative terms. That way you can claim them to be abstract and not have to actually argue on an authoritative basis.
There's plenty of them.
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:03pm.
There's plenty of them. George H., George W., Jeb, Bill Kristol, Marco Rubio, Max Boot, Bill Bennett, Newt, Krauthammer, Rove, Rumsfeld, Mark Levin...the list goes on and on.
This will help you out if you will actually read it with an open mind: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html
And yes, terror/terrorism is abstract; no, that does not mean it doesn't exist, but because it is an abstract, it allows government to constantly define and redefine just what is terror and just who are terrorists, and it allows for an expansive government (Patriot Act, TSA, REAL ID, etc.). Yes, the sheep easily eat it up, and no, it doesn't relate back to 9/11.
I've got a clip of Satchmo's
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:22pm.
other conspiracy theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPMS6tGOACo
Diabolical!!!!!
Hey NC COP, seen this one?
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:55pm.
A Ron Paul supporter put this in an Austin, Tx alternative newspaper.
I"m sure that incestmo will repudiate this guy, immediately. Or not.
lawyers and politicians
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:27pm.
"allows government to constantly define and redefine" - politicians being politicians and lawyers being lawyers does not constitute a infamous group of 'neo-cons' with the goal of perpetual war.
I wasn't a big fan of the Iraq war but it was a logical war in my mind if you were going to fight terrorism. One of the few reasons I was not a fan was because there was because politically the US can no longer fight a long term war (the US has become too politically torn to maintain objectives required to win a war lasting more than a few battles) and win regardless of the fact that militarily the US could win nearly any battle. However, in many times in the past I have argued in favor of the Iraq war - not because I believe in the war but because if you were going to be at war it was a logical and defendable decision. That does not mean that I want perpetual war either. However the recognition that our government is not static and is very partisan should stop people when they think military action is a good idea because in four years or less another political decision could be made that will waste all efforts, life and treasure.
Satchmo = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:38pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
I wouldn't call this abstract
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 4:34pm.
So, the premise then is that the neo-conservatives as defined by satchmo, otherwise known as the "war-lovers" have ginned up perpetual war for personal gain? How have they gained? And if not for personal gain as your link seems to suggest, then for what other end would perpetual war be the means?
I know you wouldn't. You
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 5:23pm.
I know you wouldn't. You always have faith in government. It can do no wrong and would never become Leviathan. It's not as if they get to define the terms so that they can be applied to whatever or whomever they wish. You would have been a real hit with our Founders.
And no, that isn't the premise.
Yes, of course satch
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:08pm.
I'm a big government proponent. Okay- that was a joke. I'm not a big government proponent even if you degree me as such.
I am a proponent of a strong military however, and as a Marine veteran with some pretty extensive classified training in counter-terrorism, I understand that "terrorism" is, in fact, a tactic used by those who oppose the United States and what we -or they perceive that we, stand for. I understand the various methods by which nation states, state-supported factions, or other smaller, independent groups will attempt to create fear among our citizens and those with whom we are aligned throughout the world. These are not abstract concepts; they are very real and designed to achieve a particular goal. They must be combated less they be allowed to succeed. Hiding under a rock with Ron Paul will not deter them from their mission.
They define the terms? Who's "they"?
And what's with you not answering questions? Are they too difficult or do you struggle somewhat with English?
Yes, terrorism is a tactic,
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:55pm.
Yes, terrorism is a tactic, but The War on Terror is a war on an abstract. It does not identify an enemy and allows anything and anyone to be an enemy in order to perpetuate war, control, and expansive government. Christ, open your eyes. And I think you missed it when I said terrorism is real.
"They" is the government, the ones who make the rules.
I have answered every question you've asked. You asked me a series of questions based upon something you said was my premise. I said it wasn't the premise, which rendered your questions invalid.
Satchmo,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:17pm.
I won't speak of the goals of politicians and the intentional/unintentional results of driving towards those goals but the idea of 'war lovers' is wrong and hiding behind the vague and malleable label of neo-cons is not a proper argument. Neo-con has become little more than an argumentative label to anyone who doesn't criticize military action in an appropriate manner to non-interventionist. Support for a war doesn't necessarily mean that the supporter 'loves' or even tolerates the idea of war but simply defines their attitude toward a particular military action.
Even your list of Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya and Syria are supported and criticized by varying groups of people on an individual basis. Especially Iraq considering there are many who supported the war but don't support us being there now - are they part time 'neo-cons' by your use of the word?
The war on terrorism has a very clear and tangible list of enemies and it is only the politicizing of the war and political correctness that creates vagueness. BTW, for clarification the wars in Iran, Egypt, Libya and Syria would not be part of the War on Terror but are interventions due to government responses to local actions. Are you a Neo-Con because you were trapped in the vagueness? Of course not and neither are most people who support military actions. Heck some do it just because they feel they are not supporting the troops if they don't.
We probably aren't that far apart in our beliefs about what the US should do with its military but to use such a big vague brush as Neo-Cons and start painting a landscape of anyone who doesn't agree totally with non-interventionism is crass. The number of people who want war is a very small percentage except at times of heightened emotions (post 9/11). Most people are rational and abhor the idea of destruction and death that defines war.
The government that wants to restrict liberties does not need the excuse of war. Obamacare was passed without military action and it will eventually be the most restricting/repressive law to ever get through Congress. All that was needed was enough people (political representatives) to convince their constituents that the loss of liberties would be out weighed by the benefits. EPA and FCC regulations are creating a stranglehold on businesses nationwide without any more than an executive directive.
The current crop of wars are evidence of a lack of compass and an administration that has no clear goal or stated strategy other than to do something. That goes back to the previous administration pre-surge 'strategy' as well. That lack of strategy also leads to nation building which is a concept adopted due to the fall out of WWI - were they neo-cons then?
"but the idea of 'war lovers'
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:42pm.
"but the idea of 'war lovers' is wrong and hiding behind the vague and malleable label of neo-cons is not a proper argument."
I'm sorry, Agnostic; I respect you and your opinions, but we're just going to have to disagree on this one. Neo-conservatism has a very real history, and a very real ideology behind it. I hope you will read the article I linked to in my reply to bkeyser.
In regards to Iran, et al., it doesn't matter how many groups there are or how they vary, all that matters is that the federal government of the United States of America took official positions to arm these countries and/or supply them with foreign aid, and then we turned around and made war with them. I'm not going to paint with a broad brush and say all of those who supported the war but don't now are part-time neo-cons, or were even neo-cons at all. I was fully in support of the war, but as I read and researched and learned more about our history and the history of factions and ideologies behind some factions, I became opposed to it. I wouldn't have called myself a neo-con because at the time I was like many here and held many of the same beliefs and positions; they see it as someone questioning patriotism and love of country by way of criticizing our foreign policy. My support for the Iraq War had more to do with Saddam's violation of the cease fire, but as I learned about and understood more about the unconstitutional War Powers Act, my views changed because, unbeknownst to me, they were not in line with the Constitution. So to answer your question, those people may be neo-cons, or they may not be, and think neo-con is just some smear dreamed up by the left, not realizing that it has a very real history.
I'll also disagree with you that Neo-conservatism is a vague brush. Again, there is an ideology behind it. If one subscribes to that ideology, then one is a neo-conservative. I think you generally think the best of people, and that's why it's hard to think that there are people who want war beyond times of heightened emotions (which is a don't-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste moment).
You're correct that the government doesn't need war in order to restrict liberties, but it makes it a lot easier for people to get on board, all in the name of security.
Satchmo - still clueless
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:43pm.
and knows not of what he writes (or copies-and-pastes).
neo-con
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:49pm.
I don't mean this flippantly: are you saying this is basically a an idea coalesced out of the actions and thoughts of people that aren't necessarily part of a group but at various times have the same goal or is this secret society stuff?
Funny you should think that I think too well of people when I had to back out of a dialog a couple of weeks ago because I could not think well enough of people. I think there are individuals who would want continuous war for various reasons. But looking at what has been gained in the loss of freedom due to wars since the end of the Korean War (conflict if your particular) then the people trying to use war instead of social programs are idiots. We had Echelon before the Patriot Act and nobody cared. More freedoms have been lost to bad Congressional laws and poor judgments by the courts in the last decade then all of America's wars combined (excluding temporary measures).
People can be evil, very evil but it is rare that an individual that is self involved as the characteristics of the neo-conservatives as described will work against their self interest. The transfer of power to the government via capital suppression of the population allows for much more control and an escalating power base. Wars prick at emotions and create sometimes uncontrolled backlash and unpredictable events - neither is an event which is sought after by those who make schemes because they are all about control.
Could it be possible? Absolutely - it is within the framework of the human range of good and evil. However, it is a very wasteful and purposeless method when compared to the much more likely alternatives that it seems implausible.
As far as the history of neo-conservatism you are correct it does have a definite history however just like liberal, conservative and progressive the terms seem to mean different things to different people - even the experts - and change over time.
I can definitely agree to disagree and I will read your link.
No, it is not secret society
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:59pm.
No, it is not secret society stuff. It is an ideology like paleo-conservative is an ideology.
Satchmo LIES through his green crooked teeth.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:39am.
+++
Push US foreign policy toward isolationism
Buchanan said his goal was to push US foreign policy toward isolationism. “We need a foreign policy that will get us out of all these foreign entanglements and quarrels that are poisoning our politics and assuring the US will be involved in wars in the future that are none of our business,” he said. Buchanan holds such strongly isolationist views that he believes the US had no compelling interest in fighting in WWII, although it should have supported its allies.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Sep 20, 1999
++++
Pat Buchanan -- Isolationist Economic Policies
+++
The Stupid Isolationist Right By Thomas Karako
The Stupid Isolationist Right. Yes, that is still a legitimate and meaningful category. Patrick Buchanan perfectly captures it in his latest column.
+++
Pat Buchanan Got His Facts Wrong
While there are many bothersome aspects about Pat Buchanan's isolationist tract, A Republic, Not an Empire, his argument that Adolf Hitler posed no direct threat to the United States in 1940 -- an argument that has correctly triggered a controversy within the Reform Party -- is especially troubling.
+++
Initial Thoughts on Buchanan's "Unnecessary War"
Understanding Buchanan's Isolationism
Patrick J. Buchanan is an isolationist. Anytime someone listens to this political commentator, they should keep that in the forefront of their mind
+++
American Spectator ---
Is Pat Buchanan a Crank?
+++
McCain slams GOP hopefuls' 'isolationism'
"This is isolationism," McCain said. "There's always been an isolationist strain in the Republican Party, the Pat Buchanan wing of our party.
+++
Do we have to beg to finally get rid of this deliberately antithetical troll?
.
So because others cannot
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:49am.
So because others cannot correctly differentiate isolationism and non-interventionism, this means he's an isolationist.
Educate yourself instead of picking up little bits and pieces that you think support your "argument", yet never do.
Are you in any way related to
Submitted by Gat New York on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:54am.
Are you in any way related to Sharpton because I cannot imagine anyone else that clueless and unless you actually are Sharpton.
Ummmm...
Submitted by NavyBuckeye on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:57am.
I think he posted quite a bit to support his argument. He has done such a good job, that his stance is fact and your agrument that he is not is the one that needs to be proven.
I'lll hold my breath waiting.............on second thought, that might prove to be fatal.
No, he posted a number of
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:26pm.
No, he posted a number of examples of others who do not know the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Not surprisingly, many of those examples come from neo-conservatives, who favor war, empire buliding, and spreading our military all over the place.
Here's agreat piece that will hopefully enlighten.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html
Poor sissyboy.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:04pm.
Usually it is liberals destroying words by giving them a bad name. Now it is racist libertarians destroying words. Is sad day for sissyboy. Has to make up new words because everyone scoffs at the old one.
isolationism: : a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations.
noninterventionalism: See isolationism.
What a penis
Submitted by topdog729 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:33pm.
noninterventionalism isn't in the dictionary so thereby it's not defined Like al you need to get a clue of what you say prior to saying it
~Seriously?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:47pm.
.
topdog729 called me a penis.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:28pm.
I don't like being called a penis. It is a mean word and there are ladies present.
Also, clueless here states a word is not in the dictionary. I said racist liberals made up the word. Hmmmm.
Looks like the penis spouting clueless guy backed up MY point after calling me a penis which hurt my penis sensitive feelings. Please mister, don't call people penis. It hurts. Not the penis, the feelings.
Hmm. NB account activated 2 years and 2 days ago
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:35pm.
...and you have only a handful of posts.
Yeah, and I bet you aren't a troll or a plant, either.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
topdoggie
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:39pm.
Too bad topdoggie didn't get his brain activated when his account was activated.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
~topdog
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:39pm.
is a 3.5 pound bundle of unbridled liberal fury! Watch your ankles, and your step. He gets excited.
This is why I just love me some Bru to death
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:42pm.
Well, Okay - one of the reasons.
:-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
~Right back atcha, darlin'
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:13pm.
*smooch*
:-) -Dave
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:25pm.
:-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Probably
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:59pm.
Piddles, as well
~Click on the link, LOL
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:13pm.
.
Ah, I was right,,,,, for once
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:22pm.
I think they call that espn, er something?
~According to my husband
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:25pm.
:-p
topdog729 = troll
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 9:13am.
topdog729: "noninterventionalism isn't in the dictionary"
You need to get a better dictionary.
Ah, yes, the often stated
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:02pm.
Ah, yes, the often stated "You don't understand the subject" from Satchmo.
Get a new act, this one is tired.
I didn't say that. Not even
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:30pm.
I didn't say that. Not even close. I said his links were poor examples because the sources are committing the same error.
Actually, you did say that.
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:34pm.
"So because others cannot correctly differentiate isolationism and non-interventionism,"
What exactly does this mean then, Satchmo? You're not basically saying that his source don't understand the topic, but you do.
Please stop lying, it's getting embarassing for everyone. It's like watching a guy get beaten with a sock full of pennies.
Satchmo - still clueless
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:22pm.
Your mere assertion does not make it automatically fact. So the onus probandi rests upon your shoulders to prove your allegations with sound, documented evidence. Thus far you have failed to do so. Again.
Satchmo LIES again and again.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:04pm.
Sissyboy Satchmo: ...your "argument"...
Wasn't "my" argument. Mr. "Sheppard" put "it" forward. You "played" troll on him. I "was" supporting his argument.
+++
The philosophical divide within the Tea Party mirrors the broader split within the Republican Party, which has careened back and forth for decades between the likes of Pat Buchanan's isolationism and the aggressive internationalism of George W. Bush.
+++
Isolationism is bad politics—A Commentary by Pratik Chougule '12
Perhaps we are at a moment when the internationalist consensus genuinely is breaking. But politicians should be wary of betting their futures on the country turning towards the likes of Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich.
Amen !
Submitted by topdog729 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:26pm.
the title says it all
Here, let me put on some Barry White for you two Paultards...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:51pm.
♫ Can't get enough of your trollin' babe... ummmmm... ♫
Def 1. non-interventionism :
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 6:33pm.
Def 1. non-interventionism : a position against the "interventionist" point-of-view that the country should involve itself in international government, act as a world police force, do "peacekeeping missions", pre-emptive strikes, nation building, and covert ops in foreign countries.
Def 2. isolationism : a position which holds we should not form any strategic alliances that would commit us to defending our allies if they were attacked, nor should we help any country that's an informal ally which is attacked, nor should we attack allies of those who attack us if they haven't attacked us directly. Meaning we shouldn't have gone to war with Germany in World War II, and shouldn't have been involved in World War I.
Bat Buchanan fits definition 2.
Your second definition is an
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 7:30pm.
Your second definition is an example of non-interventionism, not isolationism. The very word strategic underscores this.
Sissy to English translation ---
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:32pm.
--- I have hard time with words. Please. Please don't use any big words like startragic. King Rontard Paulbot has not used that word so I do not know what it means.
OK this is now YOUR SONG SATCH/TROLL
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:17pm.
TO THE TUNE............ THEME FROM RAWHIDE....
trollin trollin trollin...
keep those lies a rolling
till every dollars stolen........ Revenue!
through all the lies were tellin
all the bull we are sellin
Conservatives we commin after you......
Tell a lie (Not the truth) not the truth (but a lie)
then poke em in the eye (THEN LIEEEE.....)
take a poll (let em roll) sell your soul (for gold)
as long as dems win ..... DEMS......... LIE......
DEM>>>>>> LIE
He's always been an idiot. Not overly useful.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:12am.
In Sharpton's mind all conservatives are in lockstep with Bush.
Rev Al is probatable-
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:17am.
he is just plain crazy.
why does he get a forum.
Boycott all Sponsors of Rev Al's programs.
get their attention.
he is a tax cheat-why is he not in prison. owing millions.
It's Rev Al
Submitted by John21 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:15am.
It is Al Sharpton !!! No intelligence. No credibility, No morality, No commansense, No Clue Al Sharpton. Has NEVER been right about anything Al Sharpton. Famous only for his racebaiting Al Sharpton.
You can tell when he is lying because his lips are moving. Why does anyone listen to or pay attention to such a dingbat?
Because he's their minority quota
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:16pm.
MSNBC was criticized for not having a black host in its prime time/evening line-up. They must figure that Sharpton is a safe bet because, like Jesse Jackson in the '80s and '90s, he's the MSM's go-to spokesman for black America.
Considering the crap that his predecessing hosts spewed nightly, I don't think MSNBC is concerned about Sharpton's lack of knowledge or research skills. Sharpton is a one-trick pony in that everthing he says ultimately tracks to racism. Had his conversation with Buchanan goner on long enough, Sharpton would've tried to nuke Buchanan with his trump -- the Race Card.
Alpo has already stated
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:32am.
that he will not say anything against Obama. That is reason enough to switch the channel. If he can't state the truth about ANYONE, good or bad, he doesn't belong in the publics' eye.
His allegiance...
Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:47am.
to Obama is not disguised as Democrat party, socialist left wing ideology but strictly on race allegiance. Can you imagine a FOX pundit supporting a politician blatantly and strictly along racial lines? Unbelievable, but this is what MSNBC spews . This station is the fifth column for the Soros machine that is trying to destroy this country.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
In the end...
Submitted by PJRyan on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:58am.
I think Sharpton's hiring at MSNBC will be a huge positive for everyone but the extreme left. MSNBC/Comcast paying millions of $s/year to a lobbyist to have terrible ratings. Worst-case scenario, he stays on for a couple years with dwindling ratings because they can't fire him. Best-case scenario, he has such an extreme racist/homophobic/anti-semitic/misogynystic, on-air meltdown that even MSNBC/Comcast has to fire him. (I think Ann Coulter could bring about that meltdown in about 90 seconds). I'm picturing Maddow and SSFE Schultz totally bewildered as they must, innately, protest the public firing of an African-American, but they'd be going against their own network and he inconveniently bared his racist/homophobic/anti-semitic/misogynystic soul on live TV...
A Mistake
Submitted by Gat New York on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:03pm.
I think Sharpton is more than a "blithering idiot." It was evident from the reaction by the others around the table that he is an embarrassment. He has no intelligence is nothing than a street rabble rouser who in the past thinks nothing of viciously attacking people like George W. Bush or Jews in New York.
Everyone knows that people like Buchanan and Ron Paul are traditional isolationists.
And everyone knows that Al Sharpton is a leach that preys on the African American community.
Dumb Al (dumb you can't help;
Submitted by jdhawk on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:17pm.
Dumb Al (dumb you can't help; as opposed to stupid which can be helped). Even telepromters and ear pieces giving him specific directions can't save him from himself.
But the larger issue is our present wars. Remember the incessant caterwauling on the part of the leftist media and the socialist party aka demcRATS concerning our involvement in the War on Terror? Meanwhile all through that members of the Congress never once voted to defund the wars. When the dimocrats took over the Congress, they still didn't do so. When O'bummer became president and the Senate had a veto proof majority of demoRATS, still no defunding. In fact, this Congress and like the president before him have us still fighting these wars. In fact, O'bozo has doubled down. He has us in at least three or four countries engaged in conflict.
Yet, for all the above, we have zero, nada, zilch caterwauling about our wars while O'stupid is in office.
Do you think Dumb Al will ever compare and contrast this issue?
I think he is a "dick," too!
But....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:36pm.
"But you didn't oppose his vacations."
Priceless!
"Two wars he created"
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:30pm.
TWO war Bush created? So, the Taliban didn't exist in Afghanistan, nor did Al Queada, nor Bin Laden, prior to the Afghanistan war that Bush "created?" Ok, Al, it's time for you to change your depends, because you're full of it!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Yes, the two wars Bush
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:23pm.
Yes, the two wars Bush created. Why are you confusing organizations with war? Bush didn't create the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or Bin Laden; he created the two wars.
Hey stupid, perverted dipstick
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:37pm.
When two people (parties / factions / nations / groups / whatever) go to war, TWO FRICKIN' PEOPLE "create" it.
So answer me this, you worthless moron:
- Al Qaeda wages war on us from their base in Afghanistan, and we retaliate and invade that country. Who really created that war?
- Saddam Hussein continually thumbed his nose at sanctions and no-fly zones when he was warned, and was a tyrant killing his own people. Who really created that war?
Piss ant.
- Shy on Trolls
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy -- I much prefer fire
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:40pm.
Shy -- I much prefer fire ants to piss ants. Good rant.
Did I detect a little Frankie GTH in your opening sentence?
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Jack!
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 5:03pm.
Long time, how's everything?
Hmm, you got me on the Frankie reference. If it's not "Relax" then I might not figure it out.
Cheers from Flash Mob Country to Hooded Gang Riot Country! :p (although, it's not all that funny...)
- Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Two Tribes! When two tribes
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 6:36pm.
Two Tribes! When two tribes go to war, et al.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
You contradicted
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 5:02pm.
You contradicted yourself.
"When two people (parties / factions / nations / groups / whatever) go to war, TWO FRICKIN' PEOPLE "create" it."
"Al Qaeda wages war on us..."
You contradicted
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 5:08pm.
You contradicted yourself.
And you were born.
You are such a complete *ss. Yeah, one side waged it (as in, declared it) and then both went to it.
Now back to how one person (Bush) created those wars..... freakin' moron.
- Shy Shop
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
"Yeah, one side waged it " So
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 5:24pm.
"Yeah, one side waged it "
So then it doesn't take two people "(parties / factions / nations / groups / whatever)" to create war.
And I hate to break it to you, but wages does not equal declares. Regardless, you said that war is only dependent upon one actor. This, of course, is after you said that it takes two groups for war, and now you're saying it again.
This is a bad case of doublethink you have going.
freak
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 5:50pm.
Okay, your rambling is duly noted.
So... think again. Long and hard. Who "created" the war in Afghanistan, you knucklehead? You still think it was Bush?
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 7:46pm.
SatchelMouth does NOT think.
He spouts tripe, crap, BS, pure sh*t and nothing else.
The sob is a liar, and a world class denier when his lies are pointed out over and over.
POS really should be banned.
Again.
MD
To be fair,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:43pm.
Paul-bots are cant help themselves. You see, if Paul was President he would had apologized for making them knock down them buildings.
To think the world ails are because of our American prosperity, and the fact we promote it. Sick of em.
I personally have a great deal of respect for Paul, but his supporters are pathetic. Including a few Radio host I used to respect.
Piss Ant Pervmo
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:55pm.
"Yes, the two wars Bush created."
Hey turd, want to revise this? You still contend that Bush "created" the Afghan war?
- Spinning Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Satchmo - still clueless
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 9:17am.
Such an absurd and uninformed statement Satchmo made. Typical dishonest liberal spin & history revisionism.
Since Noel hasn't corrected
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:14pm.
Since Noel hasn't corrected the error, (in fairness, a common one, but sometimes a deliberate one), this may help persuade him and others into realizing non-interventionism is not isolationism and that Buchanan is not an isolationist.
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Pat_Buchanan_Defense.htm
Declare war only after attack on US, interests, or honor
“My vision is of a republic, not an empire -- a nation that does not go to war unless she is attacked, or her vital interests are imperiled, or her honor impugned. And when she does go to war, it is only after following a constitutional declaration by the Congress,” Buchanan said. “We are not imperialists; we are not interventionists; we are not hegemonists; and we are not isolationists. We simply believe in America first, last and always.”
Source: Associated Press, “Attack World Government” Jan 6, 2000
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2011/06/06/non-interventionism-is-right-again/
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=148
"Mr. Buchanan takes for his own the foreign policy encapsulated in George Washington's Farewell Address, the key to understanding America's relations with Europe and Asia from 1789 to 1898. (Incidentally, I am glad that our author avoids the common fallacy that the Farewell Address was actually delivered as a speech [p. 63]).
Washington's address rested on a simple principle: America's chief business lay on the American continent. The rivalries and power struggles of Europe do not affect in any fundamental way our national interest; accordingly, America should steer clear of European involvements. "`The great role of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible' said Washington, laying down a policy of nonintervention that would guide American presidents for a century""
http://dwightmurphey-collectedwritings.info/BR54.htm
"More than anything, however, the book is valuable both for its broad themes and its specific ideas. Its leading theme is that the United States, while certainly not "isolationist" in any true sense, managed to eschew interventionism in the affairs of other countries from the founding of the country in 1789 until finally the country lurched into imperialism in 1898."
Sissy to English Translation ----
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:46pm.
--- It is kinda like when I proclaim myself not a sissy then cut and run like a sissy. Like that. I am not a sissy so don't call me a sissy. See? See? Like that. I am a sissy... No wait. Got that backwards. Not a sissy. See? Not. Fudge, I just peed myself again. Gotta go.
OH, now incestmo trots out the "America First" meme?
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 6:04pm.
That would be because it worked out so well back in the 40's?
I know something me and my fellow NBers would like to see Noel..
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:30pm.
...correct.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
~Amen
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:49pm.
.
If EVER there was a thread winner, Dave---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:01pm.
your post qualifies most handsomely.
Very nice shot.
MD
We will beg. We will.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:03am.
We're not above it. It is better than wanting to scratch your eyes out every day when you come here and see utter stupidity splashed on page after page. Stupidity that gets angry and insulting when its own stupidity is pointed out. Stupidity that runs like a sissy when called on its challenges.
We are not above begging to get this corrected Mr. Sheppard.
The silence would, indeed, be golden,
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:05pm.
if the flamer would, indeed, get re-banned.
I've never seen someone who takes such delight in going where it's not wanted, spouting non-facts, and then getting all pissy when it gets called on it. Oh, wait, yes I have, anywhere that a paulturd posts.