One of the great things about this effort is the incredible kindness and eloquence of Mormon supporters. Contrast the intellectual discussion of Ron Paul here if you like....
JMR
Ron Paul is getting a lot of traction among LDS folks, and probably more if Mitt wasn't running...doesn't surprise me...many supported Ross Perot and the constitution party. Many Mormons do no trust government, and so some even believe in the 911 conspiracies.
I just can't vote for him because I think he is wrong with Iraq and wrong for using the term neo-con like a dirty word. I also think he talks too much like a congressman and not as a President.
My admiration for Dr. Paul preceeds the Iraq War, and I actually voted for him in 1988 for President. And considering history, it's no surprise that Mormons aren't fans of bigger government. Like they have with the Jews, big government tends to kill Mormons.
I was never a fan of Ross Perot. As a partisan libertarian desperately trying to get the attention of a biased media, in 1987 I founded the "Pennies For Perot" donation campaign when ol' Bigears accepted public funds (political welfare) despite being a billionaire. Libertarian Candidate Andre' Marrou actually donated a penny to his opponent while I held the coffee-can (Chock Full 0 Nuts brand, of course!) in what was probably a US Presidential donation-history-first. :)
JMR
Well I wouldn't say the government back during the day where the governor made it a law it being ok to kill Mormons, or the government claiming they will use the national guard to protect the Mormons if they give up their guns, only to have the mobs come in and kill Mormons without threat of government action or Mormons being able to defend themselves...or have the US Army come in to Utah in a threatening manner.
Mormons believe the Constitution was written by the inspiration of God...so tend to hold it in very high regard. They are quick to join the military and are very patriotic. But we also have a healthy sense that you can't trust government, you can only trust God.
I thought Perot was scary, was glad he didn't get much traction. I think Ron Paul is a decent enough guy, just can't vote for him because of the war in Iraq. If it was pre-911 and if I was confident he wouldn't leave Israel to the wolves, I could consider him.
CV, why are you so worried and concerned about Israel? Why do you want to spend billions of dollars on them and give/sell them weapons?
If you are so concerned with Israel, you can do what you want after Paul is elected like the rest of America will do with their special interest. If you want to give AIPAC $100.00 so be it. But I don't want to so F off!
Would Israel still be a good ally if we didn't give them financial aid and weapons? A friend in need is a friend indeed.
Jumping to the conclusion that someone is Muslim because they don't want to give their tax dollars to Israel is a little bigoted, isn't it?
On the subject of your not wanting to support Ron Paul because of the Iraq War (which is reasonable), I'm curious, how long do you want this war to go on? I mean, eventually this war will be over, and then you'll be left with a president that you only supported for a cause that has ended.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
WhichWhine, if you bothered to read your history, you would know that we didn't always provide weaponry to the Israelis. Indeed, in the Six-Day War, the IDF's air arm consisted mostly of French aircraft. They switched to American jets in the late 60s -early 70s.
Nonetheless, the United States has always been a staunch supporter of Israel...and why not? They have been a viable parliamentary democracy that entire time...one of the very few in that region, no matter what you believe.
For me, I take the religious variable out of the equation. All I need to know is that Israel is a democracy in a bad neighborhood. Supporting Israel is not unlike supporting West Berlin back in the day, for the same reasons.
OK, if you bothered to read my post, you would know that I didn't say we always supported weaponry to the Israelis, didn't even suggest it. I'm guessing you realize that, but it was an easy way to avoid the question I asked.
The question is still up there, if CV or Insane (always fun making fun of someone's screen name, isn't it?) want to answer it.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Do you REALLY think "Insane" instead of "Unsane" is an insult?
Sad.
One of the reasons I chose my screen-name (an opening act for Slayer at a concert I caught in 1996) is because I have been introduced as "This is ____________, he is insane." by more people than you realize.
It's actually a compliment to be honest with you.
What is wrong with the United States supporting Israel? That seems to bother you for some reason.
I only took a shot at your name to show how childish you look everytime you say "WhichWhine." You apparently missed the point on that one too.
Who said anything was wrong with supporting Israel? Here's a clue, it wasn't me. I only asked if Israel would be still be as good an ally if we stopped giving them weapons and financial aid.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Amusing. One of the biggest, whiniest crybabies on NB trying to point out how childish I am. That has to be the most irony laden post I have seen in some time!
True, you didn't say anything was wrong with supporting Israel...only because you are too ashamed to put forth your honest view of that question.
Israel has always been an ally, and why shouldn't they be?
Do you always answer a question with another question? Just as I didn't say there was anything wrong with supporting Israel, I haven't said they shouldn't be our ally. So here's the question I asked, AGAIN:
Would Israel still be a good ally if we didn't give them financial aid and weapons?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
and the question was answered. First we destroyed the premise that giving weapons and money makes someone an ally.
Then we destroyed the premise that Israel wouldn't be our ally because they were our ally before we gave money and arms.
But I will say this, if we were to stop giving arms and money then Israel will no longer be our ally...because they won't exist.
Your reasoning has already been attempted and shot down. I am asking if Israel would be a good ally if we didn't give them weapons and financial aid. (Notice that question does not use the past tense.) There is no right or wrong answer, it's your opinion. Any of you could have simply said "YES." And I think you would have by now, if you believed it to be true.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
unsane ... I support Israel for many reasons, including the ones you mention. But I think the main one is this...
I don't think its really fair for 1200 million Muslims and 400 million arabs (inhabiting a land mass the size of the USA), to spend their whole frackin' miserable lives blaming 6 million Israelis (in a land mass smaller than Rhode Island) for their corrupt failed societies.
And to use their "religious texts" as the enabler of their barbarity.
Unfortunately Jew hatred in the oldest of the race hatreds. Though I do note that the neo-nazi left thinks it's being oh so clever in disguising its base Jew hatred when they use their code words such as "zionism" and "neo-con." It's the same old big lie by people well practised in their intolerance.
These are the same types who supported the commies and Stalin in the 1930s while he was cheerfully murdering millions.
Anyone who believes in freedom, tolerance and our way of life has to support Israel.
"Funny how you guys get so understandably rankled when you’re accused of being racists for justifiably criticizing the NAACP, or Jesse Jackson, or affirmative action, but are so ready to label anyone anti-Semitic who justifiably criticizes Israel, our political establishment’s relationship with that country, or even neoconservatives."
In this essay he is wrong, instead of just inconveniently-exposing yet-another double-standard?? Wow...I love NB, I learn new stuff here every day...
JMR
Oh I get Tonso's double standard... ranting in his passive aggressive way about the sweeping generalizations he accuses Hannity of making, whilst making exactly the same sweeping generalizations about people with whom he disagrees.
I fail to see how quoting a sweeping generalizations (you guys!!) from Tonso equates to me.
I read nothing in his letter that qualified him to give advice to me on what I perceive to be the base motives in the anti-Israel/anti-Jew stance of much of the left in 2007. He ain't the boss of me.
So Tonso thinks you guys like me have a double standard. Guess what, I just read his screed and I think he has a double standard. I'm sure he's as crushed as I am about his opinion.
"Anyone who believes in freedom, tolerance and our way of life has to support Israel." Sounds pretty "sweeping" to me, and presumably by "support Israel" you really mean "support the US mideast policy that's not working all that well at the moment." I don't (and policy toward Israel no-matter how they behave -- see spying for example -- is far from the only problem, but it's a component IMO). The point is about double-standards, and as Tonso made-clear, the right is certainly no-more immune to them than the left. It's easy to call names like "racist"!! It's a lot harder to debate policy. Hence what we see today in most conversations here on NB.
JMR
To a noninterventionist foreign policy, instead of throwing increasing quantities of tax-money/weapons-systems at both sides. But my main concern in this election is for the USA, not for any foreign countries. And I only speak for myself, anyway, and believe it or not sarcasmo has had little influence in the Mideast.
JMR
VERY VERY VERY true Jack. I liken the Israeli situation to that of West Berlin. And indeed, you are right, there are about one billion people who blame every damn thing on this earth on a country of SEVEN MILLION PEOPLE sitting on almost 7000 square miles of real estate. I guess it is easier to whine and complain about them than it is to spend the time, energy and effort in reforming their own societies.
and the hammer seems to hold true for the class envy crowd ( socialists ) as well, who seem to think if someone is rich than he stole it from people and made them poor. Nevermind that money is just the currency for exchanged goods. The rich person sells a good that another person buys...but the sum of assets remains the same. And more often then not the rich allow for more people to become rich, because it increases the flow of exchange. But the class envy crowd find it easier to blame their laziness on the rich. And what ends up happening is the complainers never get ahead. New Orleans could of been an extremely rich hub, but the people there were too corrupt and too full of excuses.
Shortly after Katrina hit New Orleans I read a great article by Thomas Lifson of the American Thinker:
"Many years ago, an oilman in Houston pointed out to me that there was no inherent reason Houston should have emerged as the world capital of the petroleum business. New Orleans was already a major city with centuries of history, proximity to oil deposits, and huge transportation advantages when the Houston Ship Channel was dredged, making the then-small city of Houston into a major port. The discovery of the Humble oil field certainly helped Houston rise as an oil center, but the industry could just as easily have centered itself in New Orleans.
"When I pressed my oilman informant for the reason Houston prevailed, he gave me a look of pity for my naiveté, and said, 'Corruption.' Anyone making a fortune in New Orleans based on access to any kind of public resources would find himself coping with all sorts of hands extended for palm-greasing. Permits, taxes, fees, and outright bribes would be a never-ending nightmare. Houston, in contrast, was interested in growth, jobs, prosperity, and extending a welcoming hand to newcomers. New Orleans might be a great place to spend a pleasant weekend, but Houston is the place to build a business.
"Today, metropolitan Houston houses roughly 4 times the population of pre-Katrina metropolitan New Orleans, despite the considerable advantage New Orleans has of capturing the shipping traffic of the Mississippi basin. "
There are other countries who we have given money and weapons to and are still anti-america, there goes that theory.
As far as jumping to conclusions, it was a question, hence can't be a conclusion. I asked the question because he seems hostile toward Israel and seems bent on proving President Bush planted the bombs...so who is jumping to conclusions...someone who asks a question or the person accusing President Bush being an evil traitor?
Do you dislike? I thought the part about double-standards fit well here, if that's what you're asking. I don't tend to see bigotry where others see it, and I tend to see it where others do not. That's life.
JMR
I am not seeing how I have a double standard sarcasmo, instead of using passive aggressive tactics of posting links against Sean Hannity when I am not Sean Hannity...be a man and just come out and say it. So again I will ask, what words do you stand by as your own words?
Tonso's are Tonso's. You might not see a double-standard in terms of the hate-allegations thrown by both sides at the other, but he and I obviously both-did.
JMR
Isreal would be a great ally even if you got your devils game and they were cut off completey.
Glad you didn't mean it, not a thing, it was a question, and you have no idea what the answer would be, and you don't have any opinion, nor did you imply one....
And, of course YOU'RE A GIGANTIC LYING SACK OF .....
What moves people like you to OBVIOUSLY lie like that ?
You have a thought process that nobody but you can follow. Please tell the class how you come to the conclusion that asking a question is telling a lie.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
"As far as offering a theory, it was a question, hence can't be a conclusion."
Why is it that only applies to you? And I think it is sad that I am more pro-Israel and more of an avid supporter of the Jews there than you are. Guess Rush is right, to liberals, liberalism and power to liberals is more important than anything else.
Also for someone who was quick to jump to conclusions[ edited] when it comes to conservatives [ close edit ], I didn't think you were a muslim.
Ron Paul is a writer and contributor to the "American Free Press".
He is Jew Hating conspiracy theorist who has no business holding a powerful office. I wouldnt trust him as a Dog Catcher. Because Im sure he'd blame the Jews and proclaim all those stray dogs are a conspiracy to overthrow the city government.
A couple of sites to learn about the "American Free Press"
at first I thought this was going to be another guilty by association, which is annoying. But then I saw
"
Ron Paul - "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the
bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist
movement is to stifle criticism. "
if he did indeed say that, then I can't help but to conclude he is anti-semite.
To say things like Israel has spied on the United States, because they have spied on the United States, and they're a powerful enough lobby to get away with it, from what I've seen. He's interested in the USA's military interest more than theirs, and that's not evidence of hate, it's evidence of patriotism, IMO.
JMR
I dont know, when you associate yourself with the "American Free Press" and in your own newsletter call Israel the most powerful lobby in washington of the (keyword here) "bad" sort, I think its fair to say that that person has a strong dislike of Israel.
I harken back to the words of JFK, and this kind of patriotism.
"Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom."
and uses neo-con as a dirty word, sure he hasn't openly admitted he is an anti-semite nor has he hailed hitler...but the evidence sure makes a strong argument that he is guilty.
And as far as him just being fiscally minded, and that is why he doesn't want to support our number one ally in the middle east. then why not go after the countries that hate us, yet we still give them money? Ron Paul says more against Israel than he does against Iran, and that should tell you something.
Of this allegation. Unquestioning support for more & more intervention is what has endangered all people in the Mideast, and he's just as against too much tax money to the other nations in the area from any honest reading of what he's said...Our policy of support for Egypt's dictatorship is particularly galling, and generates even further hate -- especially when combined with the preaching in schools funded by our "friends" the Saudi dictatorship.
JMR
Yes CV, that could have been me as well, I use DO instead of DONT (nickname) on liberal boards because if it were up to liberals, the first American flag would have read DO Tread on ME instead of DONT.
I remember that story and quote as well. It was in his newsletter and when Ron Paul was challenged on it, he said he didnt actually write it but his staffers or somebody did, but it was still his newsletter.
Here is the link to Flopping Aces who also posted on this.
I normally dont buy the guilt by association clause but considering its the American Free Press (who I detest) and the things Ron Paul has said or done about conspiracy theories regarding 9-11, well it sure makes you wonder.
That there's no proof he hates anyone, which is why he's won election after election to the House over the years, and also why the campaign is so diverse in so many ways (see, for example, the online rally!)...
JMR
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
sarcasmo
August 23, 2007 - 14:13 ET by Conservative Voiceyou might be interested in this link
http://www.latterday...
Ron Paul is getting a lot of traction among LDS folks, and probably more if Mitt wasn't running...doesn't surprise me...many supported Ross Perot and the constitution party. Many Mormons do no trust government, and so some even believe in the 911 conspiracies.
I just can't vote for him because I think he is wrong with Iraq and wrong for using the term neo-con like a dirty word. I also think he talks too much like a congressman and not as a President.
Thanks.
August 23, 2007 - 14:22 ET by sarcasmoInteresting link.
My admiration for Dr. Paul preceeds the Iraq War, and I actually voted for him in 1988 for President. And considering history, it's no surprise that Mormons aren't fans of bigger government. Like they have with the Jews, big government tends to kill Mormons.
I was never a fan of Ross Perot. As a partisan libertarian desperately trying to get the attention of a biased media, in 1987 I founded the "Pennies For Perot" donation campaign when ol' Bigears accepted public funds (political welfare) despite being a billionaire. Libertarian Candidate Andre' Marrou actually donated a penny to his opponent while I held the coffee-can (Chock Full 0 Nuts brand, of course!) in what was probably a US Presidential donation-history-first. :)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
"big government tends to
August 23, 2007 - 16:14 ET by Conservative Voice"big government tends to kill Mormons."
Well I wouldn't say the government back during the day where the governor made it a law it being ok to kill Mormons, or the government claiming they will use the national guard to protect the Mormons if they give up their guns, only to have the mobs come in and kill Mormons without threat of government action or Mormons being able to defend themselves...or have the US Army come in to Utah in a threatening manner.
Mormons believe the Constitution was written by the inspiration of God...so tend to hold it in very high regard. They are quick to join the military and are very patriotic. But we also have a healthy sense that you can't trust government, you can only trust God.
I thought Perot was scary, was glad he didn't get much traction. I think Ron Paul is a decent enough guy, just can't vote for him because of the war in Iraq. If it was pre-911 and if I was confident he wouldn't leave Israel to the wolves, I could consider him.
CV, why are you so worried
August 24, 2007 - 15:16 ET by ThoughtPoliceCV, why are you so worried and concerned about Israel? Why do you want to spend billions of dollars on them and give/sell them weapons?
If you are so concerned with Israel, you can do what you want after Paul is elected like the rest of America will do with their special interest. If you want to give AIPAC $100.00 so be it. But I don't want to so F off!
And as far as Iraq goes, Paul is right.
Name a better ally in the
August 24, 2007 - 16:27 ET by Conservative VoiceName a better ally in the middle east, one.
Are you a muslim?
Would Israel still be a
August 25, 2007 - 06:44 ET by WhichWingWould Israel still be a good ally if we didn't give them financial aid and weapons? A friend in need is a friend indeed.
Jumping to the conclusion that someone is Muslim because they don't want to give their tax dollars to Israel is a little bigoted, isn't it?
On the subject of your not wanting to support Ron Paul because of the Iraq War (which is reasonable), I'm curious, how long do you want this war to go on? I mean, eventually this war will be over, and then you'll be left with a president that you only supported for a cause that has ended.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
On Israel
August 25, 2007 - 06:52 ET by UnsaneWhichWhine, if you bothered to read your history, you would know that we didn't always provide weaponry to the Israelis. Indeed, in the Six-Day War, the IDF's air arm consisted mostly of French aircraft. They switched to American jets in the late 60s -early 70s.
Nonetheless, the United States has always been a staunch supporter of Israel...and why not? They have been a viable parliamentary democracy that entire time...one of the very few in that region, no matter what you believe.
For me, I take the religious variable out of the equation. All I need to know is that Israel is a democracy in a bad neighborhood. Supporting Israel is not unlike supporting West Berlin back in the day, for the same reasons.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
OK, if you bothered to read
August 25, 2007 - 07:29 ET by WhichWingOK, if you bothered to read my post, you would know that I didn't say we always supported weaponry to the Israelis, didn't even suggest it. I'm guessing you realize that, but it was an easy way to avoid the question I asked.
The question is still up there, if CV or Insane (always fun making fun of someone's screen name, isn't it?) want to answer it.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Seriously...
August 26, 2007 - 06:42 ET by UnsaneDo you REALLY think "Insane" instead of "Unsane" is an insult?
Sad.
One of the reasons I chose my screen-name (an opening act for Slayer at a concert I caught in 1996) is because I have been introduced as "This is ____________, he is insane." by more people than you realize.
It's actually a compliment to be honest with you.
What is wrong with the United States supporting Israel? That seems to bother you for some reason.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I only took a shot at your
August 26, 2007 - 06:59 ET by WhichWingI only took a shot at your name to show how childish you look everytime you say "WhichWhine." You apparently missed the point on that one too.
Who said anything was wrong with supporting Israel? Here's a clue, it wasn't me. I only asked if Israel would be still be as good an ally if we stopped giving them weapons and financial aid.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
The irony
August 26, 2007 - 21:17 ET by UnsaneAmusing. One of the biggest, whiniest crybabies on NB trying to point out how childish I am. That has to be the most irony laden post I have seen in some time!
True, you didn't say anything was wrong with supporting Israel...only because you are too ashamed to put forth your honest view of that question.
Israel has always been an ally, and why shouldn't they be?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Do you always answer a
August 27, 2007 - 06:43 ET by WhichWingDo you always answer a question with another question? Just as I didn't say there was anything wrong with supporting Israel, I haven't said they shouldn't be our ally. So here's the question I asked, AGAIN:
Would Israel still be a good ally if we didn't give them financial aid and weapons?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
and the question was
August 27, 2007 - 13:43 ET by Conservative Voiceand the question was answered. First we destroyed the premise that giving weapons and money makes someone an ally.
Then we destroyed the premise that Israel wouldn't be our ally because they were our ally before we gave money and arms.
But I will say this, if we were to stop giving arms and money then Israel will no longer be our ally...because they won't exist.
Isreal buys stuff from us,
August 27, 2007 - 15:39 ET by TruthMongerIsreal buys stuff from us, we don't give it to them - we make a profit:)
true :) But even if we did,
August 27, 2007 - 16:05 ET by Conservative Voicetrue :) But even if we did, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
WhichWing I believe it was an answer
August 26, 2007 - 08:33 ET by SportPoliticsyour moronic deadbrain missed. Since we didn't give weapons back then, and they were an ally anyway...
I wonder though, if the liberals and kookballs were cut off from federal assistance what kind of "ally" they would be.
LOL - Yes that is much more appropriate. And we know the answer, look at Katrina...look what they do and how they act...
Lib in need is a lib indeed.
Your reasoning has already
August 27, 2007 - 06:47 ET by WhichWingYour reasoning has already been attempted and shot down. I am asking if Israel would be a good ally if we didn't give them weapons and financial aid. (Notice that question does not use the past tense.) There is no right or wrong answer, it's your opinion. Any of you could have simply said "YES." And I think you would have by now, if you believed it to be true.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
unsane ... I support Israel
August 26, 2007 - 07:45 ET by Jack Bauerunsane ... I support Israel for many reasons, including the ones you mention. But I think the main one is this...
I don't think its really fair for 1200 million Muslims and 400 million arabs (inhabiting a land mass the size of the USA), to spend their whole frackin' miserable lives blaming 6 million Israelis (in a land mass smaller than Rhode Island) for their corrupt failed societies.
And to use their "religious texts" as the enabler of their barbarity.
Unfortunately Jew hatred in the oldest of the race hatreds. Though I do note that the neo-nazi left thinks it's being oh so clever in disguising its base Jew hatred when they use their code words such as "zionism" and "neo-con." It's the same old big lie by people well practised in their intolerance.
These are the same types who supported the commies and Stalin in the 1930s while he was cheerfully murdering millions.
Anyone who believes in freedom, tolerance and our way of life has to support Israel.
Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah
So when Mr. Tonso says:
August 26, 2007 - 07:56 ET by sarcasmo"Funny how you guys get so understandably rankled when you’re accused of being racists for justifiably criticizing the NAACP, or Jesse Jackson, or affirmative action, but are so ready to label anyone anti-Semitic who justifiably criticizes Israel, our political establishment’s relationship with that country, or even neoconservatives."
In this essay he is wrong, instead of just inconveniently-exposing yet-another double-standard?? Wow...I love NB, I learn new stuff here every day...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Guess I won't be sending
August 26, 2007 - 08:19 ET by Jack BauerGuess I won't be sending you a Happy Hannukah card then.
Why not??
August 26, 2007 - 08:21 ET by sarcasmoDon't you get the double-standard point??
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Oh I get Tonso's double
August 26, 2007 - 08:26 ET by Jack BauerOh I get Tonso's double standard... ranting in his passive aggressive way about the sweeping generalizations he accuses Hannity of making, whilst making exactly the same sweeping generalizations about people with whom he disagrees.
You mean that double standard?
And please... the FDR conspiracy? Oh sure.
Funny, I don't see it that way
August 26, 2007 - 08:28 ET by sarcasmoBut then, I'm not the one with a double-standard....
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I fail to see how quoting a
August 26, 2007 - 08:36 ET by Jack BauerI fail to see how quoting a sweeping generalizations (you guys!!) from Tonso equates to me.
I read nothing in his letter that qualified him to give advice to me on what I perceive to be the base motives in the anti-Israel/anti-Jew stance of much of the left in 2007. He ain't the boss of me.
So Tonso thinks you guys like me have a double standard. Guess what, I just read his screed and I think he has a double standard. I'm sure he's as crushed as I am about his opinion.
Jack, you said:
August 26, 2007 - 10:35 ET by sarcasmo"Anyone who believes in freedom, tolerance and our way of life has to support Israel." Sounds pretty "sweeping" to me, and presumably by "support Israel" you really mean "support the US mideast policy that's not working all that well at the moment." I don't (and policy toward Israel no-matter how they behave -- see spying for example -- is far from the only problem, but it's a component IMO). The point is about double-standards, and as Tonso made-clear, the right is certainly no-more immune to them than the left. It's easy to call names like "racist"!! It's a lot harder to debate policy. Hence what we see today in most conversations here on NB.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
and how would you support
August 26, 2007 - 19:20 ET by Conservative Voiceand how would you support Israel?
By returning
August 27, 2007 - 07:11 ET by sarcasmoTo a noninterventionist foreign policy, instead of throwing increasing quantities of tax-money/weapons-systems at both sides. But my main concern in this election is for the USA, not for any foreign countries. And I only speak for myself, anyway, and believe it or not sarcasmo has had little influence in the Mideast.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Your hammer is quite precise
August 26, 2007 - 21:21 ET by UnsaneVERY VERY VERY true Jack. I liken the Israeli situation to that of West Berlin. And indeed, you are right, there are about one billion people who blame every damn thing on this earth on a country of SEVEN MILLION PEOPLE sitting on almost 7000 square miles of real estate. I guess it is easier to whine and complain about them than it is to spend the time, energy and effort in reforming their own societies.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
and the hammer seems to
August 26, 2007 - 21:56 ET by Conservative Voiceand the hammer seems to hold true for the class envy crowd ( socialists ) as well, who seem to think if someone is rich than he stole it from people and made them poor. Nevermind that money is just the currency for exchanged goods. The rich person sells a good that another person buys...but the sum of assets remains the same. And more often then not the rich allow for more people to become rich, because it increases the flow of exchange. But the class envy crowd find it easier to blame their laziness on the rich. And what ends up happening is the complainers never get ahead. New Orleans could of been an extremely rich hub, but the people there were too corrupt and too full of excuses.
On NO and Houston
August 26, 2007 - 22:01 ET by UnsaneShortly after Katrina hit New Orleans I read a great article by Thomas Lifson of the American Thinker:
"Many years ago, an oilman in Houston pointed out to me that there was no inherent reason Houston should have emerged as the world capital of the petroleum business. New Orleans was already a major city with centuries of history, proximity to oil deposits, and huge transportation advantages when the Houston Ship Channel was dredged, making the then-small city of Houston into a major port. The discovery of the Humble oil field certainly helped Houston rise as an oil center, but the industry could just as easily have centered itself in New Orleans.
"When I pressed my oilman informant for the reason Houston prevailed, he gave me a look of pity for my naiveté, and said, 'Corruption.' Anyone making a fortune in New Orleans based on access to any kind of public resources would find himself coping with all sorts of hands extended for palm-greasing. Permits, taxes, fees, and outright bribes would be a never-ending nightmare. Houston, in contrast, was interested in growth, jobs, prosperity, and extending a welcoming hand to newcomers. New Orleans might be a great place to spend a pleasant weekend, but Houston is the place to build a business.
"Today, metropolitan Houston houses roughly 4 times the population of pre-Katrina metropolitan New Orleans, despite the considerable advantage New Orleans has of capturing the shipping traffic of the Mississippi basin. "
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
There are other countries
August 25, 2007 - 12:42 ET by Conservative VoiceThere are other countries who we have given money and weapons to and are still anti-america, there goes that theory.
As far as jumping to conclusions, it was a question, hence can't be a conclusion. I asked the question because he seems hostile toward Israel and seems bent on proving President Bush planted the bombs...so who is jumping to conclusions...someone who asks a question or the person accusing President Bush being an evil traitor?
Are you a muslim?
What theory? As far as
August 26, 2007 - 07:02 ET by WhichWingWhat theory? As far as offering a theory, it was a question, hence can't be a conclusion.
Aren't you a muslim?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Since we're not discussing either Fox News Bias or Earmarks...
August 26, 2007 - 07:31 ET by sarcasmoMaybe William Tonso's open letter to Sean Hannity will help bring things around...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
which of his words do you
August 26, 2007 - 19:20 ET by Conservative Voicewhich of his words do you stand by sarcasmo?
which
August 27, 2007 - 07:07 ET by sarcasmoDo you dislike? I thought the part about double-standards fit well here, if that's what you're asking. I don't tend to see bigotry where others see it, and I tend to see it where others do not. That's life.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I am not seeing how I have a
August 27, 2007 - 13:57 ET by Conservative VoiceI am not seeing how I have a double standard sarcasmo, instead of using passive aggressive tactics of posting links against Sean Hannity when I am not Sean Hannity...be a man and just come out and say it. So again I will ask, what words do you stand by as your own words?
I stand by my own words.
August 27, 2007 - 15:44 ET by sarcasmoTonso's are Tonso's. You might not see a double-standard in terms of the hate-allegations thrown by both sides at the other, but he and I obviously both-did.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Oh WhichWing, so you really meant..
August 26, 2007 - 08:37 ET by SportPoliticsIsreal would be a great ally even if you got your devils game and they were cut off completey.
Glad you didn't mean it, not a thing, it was a question, and you have no idea what the answer would be, and you don't have any opinion, nor did you imply one....
And, of course YOU'RE A GIGANTIC LYING SACK OF .....
What moves people like you to OBVIOUSLY lie like that ?
You have a thought process
August 27, 2007 - 06:52 ET by WhichWingYou have a thought process that nobody but you can follow. Please tell the class how you come to the conclusion that asking a question is telling a lie.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
boy, you are certainly
August 26, 2007 - 19:18 ET by Conservative Voiceboy, you are certainly afraid of conclusions are you? You are very much the moderate poster boy.
so are you a muslim? People who know me already know the answer to your silly question.
I'm Jewish, dumbass. Who
August 27, 2007 - 06:54 ET by WhichWingI'm Jewish, dumbass. Who looks silly now? Can we get back to the subject at hand, instead of you pestering me about my faith.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
"As far as offering a
August 27, 2007 - 13:54 ET by Conservative Voice"As far as offering a theory, it was a question, hence can't be a conclusion."
Why is it that only applies to you? And I think it is sad that I am more pro-Israel and more of an avid supporter of the Jews there than you are. Guess Rush is right, to liberals, liberalism and power to liberals is more important than anything else.
Also for someone who was quick to jump to conclusions[ edited] when it comes to conservatives [ close edit ], I didn't think you were a muslim.
Ron Paul is a writer and
August 27, 2007 - 14:30 ET by DontTreadOnMeRon Paul is a writer and contributor to the "American Free Press".
He is Jew Hating conspiracy theorist who has no business holding a powerful office. I wouldnt trust him as a Dog Catcher. Because Im sure he'd blame the Jews and proclaim all those stray dogs are a conspiracy to overthrow the city government.
A couple of sites to learn about the "American Free Press"
http://www.oilempire.us/afp.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Free_Press
at first I thought this was
August 27, 2007 - 15:21 ET by Conservative Voiceat first I thought this was going to be another guilty by association, which is annoying. But then I saw
"
Ron Paul - "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the
bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist
movement is to stifle criticism. "
if he did indeed say that, then I can't help but to conclude he is anti-semite.
It was written by a DoTreadOnMe...any relation?
Look, it's not anti-Semitic
August 27, 2007 - 15:42 ET by sarcasmoTo say things like Israel has spied on the United States, because they have spied on the United States, and they're a powerful enough lobby to get away with it, from what I've seen. He's interested in the USA's military interest more than theirs, and that's not evidence of hate, it's evidence of patriotism, IMO.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I dont know, when you
August 27, 2007 - 15:55 ET by DontTreadOnMeI dont know, when you associate yourself with the "American Free Press" and in your own newsletter call Israel the most powerful lobby in washington of the (keyword here) "bad" sort, I think its fair to say that that person has a strong dislike of Israel.
I harken back to the words of JFK, and this kind of patriotism.
"Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom."
and uses neo-con as a dirty
August 27, 2007 - 16:14 ET by Conservative Voiceand uses neo-con as a dirty word, sure he hasn't openly admitted he is an anti-semite nor has he hailed hitler...but the evidence sure makes a strong argument that he is guilty.
And as far as him just being fiscally minded, and that is why he doesn't want to support our number one ally in the middle east. then why not go after the countries that hate us, yet we still give them money? Ron Paul says more against Israel than he does against Iran, and that should tell you something.
It should tell you that some
August 28, 2007 - 06:54 ET by WhichWingIt should tell you that some politicians actually speak the truth.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
You present no proof
August 28, 2007 - 08:03 ET by sarcasmoOf this allegation. Unquestioning support for more & more intervention is what has endangered all people in the Mideast, and he's just as against too much tax money to the other nations in the area from any honest reading of what he's said...Our policy of support for Egypt's dictatorship is particularly galling, and generates even further hate -- especially when combined with the preaching in schools funded by our "friends" the Saudi dictatorship.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Yes CV, that could have
August 27, 2007 - 15:49 ET by DontTreadOnMeYes CV, that could have been me as well, I use DO instead of DONT (nickname) on liberal boards because if it were up to liberals, the first American flag would have read DO Tread on ME instead of DONT.
I remember that story and quote as well. It was in his newsletter and when Ron Paul was challenged on it, he said he didnt actually write it but his staffers or somebody did, but it was still his newsletter.
Here is the link to Flopping Aces who also posted on this.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/05/20/ron-paul-his-racial-views/
I normally dont buy the guilt by association clause but considering its the American Free Press (who I detest) and the things Ron Paul has said or done about conspiracy theories regarding 9-11, well it sure makes you wonder.
I wonder what sarc would
August 27, 2007 - 15:32 ET by Clear thinkerI wonder what sarc would say about this?
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
I would say
August 27, 2007 - 15:38 ET by sarcasmoThat there's no proof he hates anyone, which is why he's won election after election to the House over the years, and also why the campaign is so diverse in so many ways (see, for example, the online rally!)...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sounds like sarc will vote
August 27, 2007 - 15:53 ET by Clear thinkerSounds like sarc will vote for a anti-semite.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Nope.
August 28, 2007 - 08:04 ET by sarcasmoI'll be voting for Dr. Paul, and you have yet to prove anything like that about him.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.