| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 01/05/2011 : 03:03:13 AM
|
Hi Balataf,
Here is Exhibit 1, the public approval poll for Congress. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
That is my definition of the typical politician. They are not held in high esteem as a group. Among these critters are various check kiters, DWI offenders, tax cheats, and other not-so-admirable characters. Latest bad guy seemed to be Rangel. Very few of them recognize the authority of our Constitution anymore. A lot of them can be bought off, if that will keep them in power. If Congress were a body of water, no one would want to drink from it. Other examples of politicians are those from Tammany Hall, or the Roscoe Conklin politicians of old.
I'd rather have people of prinicple, and the idea of sticking to the Constitution, spending little, not taxing the labor of the American people, insinuating ourselves into foreign matters that have no bearing on us coming to a halt, not dropping bombs on mostly civilians who have no say on how their country is run, getting rid of the useless US Departments, the selling of land owned by the federal government that is not supported by the US Constitution (such as most of Nevada), return of the dollar to one of intrinsic value, and much more.
The Tea Party is a very useful movement if its substance stays on target. I would like to see it stay autonomous, and let the GOP move toward it, rather than people like Palin, or other neoconservatives try to influence its members. One can tell the the establishment is disturbed by the mere existence of the Tea Party, no to mention the major media's posture regarding them. I wish the movement to stay pure and on firm point.
If Tea Party folks can get elected to lower offices and remain loyal to their Tea Party principles, we all have much to gain from that. However, if while in office, and working their way up into the federal legislature, cave in to the neo types, then it will all have been for nothing. If they can stay with their message while ascending to the US Congress, then there is hope for this country. Even so, they will have a monumental struggle saving our nation from full bankruptcy and a dollar that is on life support.
As to the neoconservative wars, planned noticeably earlier than 2001 (hint, hint), the costs will long be carried with us. A Nobel Laureate economist, Joseph Stiglitz (sp?)has placed the total, everything included, cost of that boondoggle war at around 3 trillion $$. This is beyond just the cost of equipment and manpower. The neoconservatives said this war would cost only $50 billion and would be paid for by oil. Looks like they were lying to us, or are incredibly stupid. Either way, they should not be listened to. Would you buy a used car from these folks?
The Iraq war has earned us a lot more enemies than were killed. Bombing wedding ceremonies does not make friends out of the survivors of them. We dropped the bombs. I wonder how many terrorists were made thay day. Unfortunately, this was not the only wedding we dropped bombs on. Extraordinary numbers of innocent people have been killed, and it would be accurate to say that a lot of people will newly wish America dead.
Iraq had nothing to do with Nine-11, and it had no WMDs except for what Rumsfeld sold Saddam. That was mainly gas that was used on Iranians. Some of it was no doubt on the Kurds.
These wars are not in the interest of the US, but rather to its detriment and peril. It is not the stuff of the Tea Party's organic intentions.
Let's not forget that Rumsfeld, the neocon, lost the sum of $2.3 trillion dollars by his own confession before Sen. Robert Byrd in a hearing. How did he do that? Leave the lights on for too long at the Pentagon? LOL. Is this the stuff of the Tea Party. I hope not. I would like to know where he got rid of that much money.
I seriously doubt that Pakistan or Iran would nuke us. They know the consequences of that, as in no more Iran or Pakistan. They are not stupid people.
What I do fear is the new terrorists that the pre-cooked wars, from the 1990s, have given us lately, that didn't exist before our wars. Bomb enough weddings and innocent civilians as America is doing, and you will develop desperate enemies that we did not have before. Given that the neocon-infested GOP has chosen to leave our borders wide open, it's not a problem for them to get into our country. If we are truly fighting terrorists, why we leave our borders open?
Ron Paul, and I suspect, the Tea Party wants our borders closed. The GOP does not. It had eight years to do it, but failed. Instead they kissed up to Vicente Fox. You might think that since we are at war with terrorists, that the first thing we'd do is have secure borders, but no, that was ignored by the "terror fighter masters."
The castrophe will be the dollar losing most of its value, and that other countries will not see it as a reserve currency. We have 75 trillion $$$ of unfunded obligations -- or about $225,000 per person. Not pretty to look at. The FED is creating money rapidly to pay for bailouts for their secret buddies that Bernanke refuses to reveal, we're monetizing debt to try to pay it off (inflationary), and I'm confident that you know more things we should not be monetizing at this point. It nudging us into the direction of Germany after WWI.
There is the old joke about the German frau who stops at the store to buy a loaf of bread. She takes her money to the store in a wheelbarrow because there are so many marks she needs to buy the bread with. She cannot get the barrow inside the store and leaves it right outside the door. Who would steal money that could only buy bread? She got the bread, took it to the checkout stand, went outside to get her money. She found her money on the sidewalk where she had left it, but the wheelbarrow was stolen.
I know of few economists, save for Obama's flunkies, who think we have the rosy scenario at hand.
This was all fully avoidable. The Democrats started us on our way down this road, but the neoconserative GOP has pushed us down this road like never before.
One can wish the Tea Party had ruled America for the whole of the 20th century. Even if we had listened to Ike about our silly wars, we would have saved ourselves thousands of American lives, and trillions of dollars. He never would have approved of what we are doing, based on his words. He said if one wants to go out and find wars to fight, that same person should fight them. The neocons are notorious cowards, who dodged the draft. Can we spell hypocrisy on their part?
We have a horribly disjunctive America. Time to clean out the cowardly and corrupt. Time to put in people of principle who cannot be bought.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
Edited by - Warmskin on 01/05/2011 03:17:52 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 11:43:03 PM
|
The Tea Party joins several existing, various types of Republican, There are social conservatives, the Wasshington establishment, neo-cons, business types, etc. The existing major parties are loose coalitions with many viewpoints and factions. The prooess of primary elections sorts out their relative strengths and influence, with the voters in control. Each election reshuffles these balances.
Rather than the Tea Party, neo-cons, or any of these groups "caving in", the process is guaranteed to be a merger with all factions winning some and all factions losing some, to make an overall compromise bargain. Too rigid an approach would make an overwhelming loss, like McGovern, Goldwater or Mondale.
For instancre, you say that the GOP does not want to control the border, yet the true evidence is that the main leaders on the subject, like Arizona's Gov. Brewer, or Nevada's Sharron Engle are clearly Republicans. Major party coalitions are not monolithic, and some labor unions are among the strongest ani-illegal forces while being liberal Democrats.
EVERY SINGLE ISSUE HAS SEPERATE COALITIONS going on at the same tiume. An ally on immigration questions may be an opponent on health care reform, and neutral on finance reform. Sometimes you wind up giving up something on one issue to get help on a different point that is moire critical to you. The Republican factions mentioned above have traded issue-support, and the Tea Party group is joining the game, which matches an overlapping Democratic issues contest. The voters control it, whenever they can reach a consensus.
I've worked in politics since 1963, and actively studied it since 1949, having been on the ballot several times, including Democratic nominee for State Representaative and several local offices at-large in a city of 90,000. I switched to Republican in 1993, over several issues.
Many neo-cons did not have military service, but some did. However, the first rule of logic is that the truth or falsehood of an idea does not depend on who is saying it.
I wes in the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment and the 20th Engineer Battalion in Viet Nam, and remained in the National Guard until 1984 when I could not continue because of health problems, and am now a wheelchair amputee from diabetic problems.
I believe the Tea Party will continue with strong influence in 2012, depending on how much it can agree on a single, solid presidential candidate. This impliess necessary compromises with the varied other Republican factions.
A side comment: Palin is a figure like William Jennings Bryan or Robert F. Kennedy, with quite enuf support WITHIN the Republicans that she would be hard to defeat. Yet, WJB got three losing nominations, an like RFK, had little support from outside with which to form a winning coalition.
I hope she doesn't run.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 03:07:20 AM
|
As regarding the GOP and the border, we had Bush, McCain (McAmnesty) (until he felt some heat), and others like Lindsay Graham (Gramnesty as known to a lot of Republicans, cared little about our borders. I'm not saying all or most GOP types were okay with a borderless USA, but the leaders were. Neocons like Bush, Graham, and McCain, not to mention many others were more about wars in the Mideast that really benefited another country over their own, than they were about limited spending, and closed borders.
When those two border guards shot a foreign drug dealer in the posterior, Bush's White House wanted them prosecuted, and they were, and thus served prison terms for stopping drug dealers from coming into the USA. Why was Bush so insistent on keeping our borders open? What did he do to close the borders to protect us from terrorists? I'm trying to think of something. I do know that Bush kissed up to Vicente Fox much more than was desirable.
Further, as if Bush and McCain weren't the near death-knell for the GOP, (elections of 2006 and 2008), who is the majority of the GOP supporting for 2012? Will it be another media-approved, certified neoconservative that supports 100 more years of war in the Mideast?
One can talk quite a bit about the individual congress critters, and their individual tendencies. Most of them are afraid to buck the ascendency of the neocons, because they will be excluded from certain money sources.
Ron Paul, one of the original inspirations for the Tea Party, is usually rebuffed by the GOP because he does not support the neocon power structure within the GOP. However, he simply goes to the people for his support and not to the institutions of power. He is a true libertarian-conservative. He actually served in the military, unlike Cristol, Cheney, Rumsfeld (as far as I know) Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith. They, get their lilly-white hands dirty in the service? Sacrelige! Their wars for a country other than the USA are being fought by the underclass, and otherwise troops of average parentage. As Kissinger once said -- our soldiers were dumb animals to be used for foreign policy.
How is it that Tea Party used to be a big supporter of Ron Paul, while later a few of them ran against him in his primary race? Something had changed.
I salute you for your service, Balataf. I was in that war, too. Lost a lot of my hearing there, as well as sustain a back injury that re-visits me reasonably often.
As for Palin, I would discourage her from running if I were a Republican. Her claim to fame is being picked to balance McCain's age, and his political stances that did not mesh all that well with conservatives. Also, the woman factor might have been involved. Having quit on her job as governor didn't help her credentials, and makes her seem that she would run from difficulties as president. There simply is not the "gravitas" that is needed on her part.
That is why I crossed party lines and voted for Ron Paul. He towers over others, in sticking to principles, no matter how much criticism he draws. He was right on the issues then as well as now, and now, even the neocon press is using him as a guest on some of their news shows. He makes the pretty faces on TV news look like fools.
If one is an opportunist like Giuliani, one's principles change like a weather vane. Pure bowl of gelatin stuff. Who is interviewing Giuliani, the mega-neocon, on the news for advice on what to do? He was a big joke. When one's opinion's shift to fit the whims of the country, that same person loses credibility.
The Tea Party would do well to stick to closed borders, very limited spending in any department, affirming the US Constitution in actually using it (Bush called it a **** piece of paper), and taking us back as much as possible to our original identity. We're so far from it now, and both the Democrats and the GOP have taken us far afield. The GOP and the Democrats may have the power, so it is up to the Tea Party to begin the education process to bring us back to our roots, if that is still their attention, other than to lower taxes.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 2:16:30 PM
|
I'm going to pick out just one point to debate. With a record of hundreds of Senate votes that are very opposed to the neo-con type positions, I find it incredible that anyone could mistake McCain for a neo-con. His positions on dozens of social and economic questions are a long way from that orientation. In fact, he does not easily fit into any of the other main factions of the Party, either, which is how he got his "maverick" reputation. Neo-cons, in particular were united in opposing McCain-Feingold election reforms, and were
strongly opposed to him for Pres. in 2000. They were among the last to get behind him for President in 2008. Both McCain and the neo-cons, (like Condi Rice, or Bill Kristol) would laugh at the idea. Are you failing to recognize that there are several other major factions besides neo-cons and Tea Party, and that the Republicans are a blend of all of them? Different states and regions are the home bases for competing factions and groups.
It is like having a half-bucket of bright blue paint, a quarter bucket of light blue, and a quarter bucket of blue-green. Mixing the left-overs does not destroy any of them, but makes a blended compromise color, with everyone contributing.
Ron Paul had been the Libertarian nominee for Pres. before he became a Republican. Much of the Tea Party is libertarian in outlook, maybe half, but there are some Christian right, some social conservtives, and other groups. As a very decentralized movement, there will always be many issues of disagreement.
As the primary voters make choices, the process advances. 2010 was full of such contests, like O'Donnell s Castle in Delware or the 5-candidate scramble that chose Nikki Haley in South Carolina. Among the Democrats, try Specter vs Sestak for Penna. US Senate.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
NaturistDoc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 2:48:29 PM
|
The GOP Tea Partiers in the House are oh so eager to reform the budget process in order to make it more "open and transparent". But their some of new rules are so egregious as to be a cause for alarm even at the arch-conservative American Enterprise Institute. Read the last 4 paragraphs. The new rules give dictatorial powers to Paul Ryan (R-WI) that Nancy Pelosi could only have dreamed of.
http://www.aei.org/article/102966
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1054 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 9:45:27 PM
|
ND, I agree with your basic point completely. This resembles the extremely tight control enforced during the time of Speaker Cannon. The great Robert LaFollette Sr., organized a revolution that enshrined member seniority as the organizing system for legislative processes, because it was automatic, and outside centralized control in distributing power.
The history of Congress is one of a succession of these reforms, each of which starts out opening the process before developing its own new types of abuses and ossifying. Some have come and gone several times now. This sort of nails it down that the main problem is the simple extension of normal human legislative behaviour. The best long-term safeguard is to do more locally and at the state level, and do minimum actions Federally, if it belongsd to govrnment at all.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 06:03:31 AM
|
Here is an interesting video from a lesser known pundit. One might agree or disagree with him, but he does provoke thought. It's focused on Ron Paul, with some other thoughts thrown in. Often, I believe Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan seem to be the only traditional conservatives left in the GOP.
Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPVVgDJ3pE8
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 7:30:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by NaturistDoc
But their some of new rules are so egregious as to be a cause for alarm even at the arch-conservative American Enterprise Institute. http://www.aei.org/article/102966
AEI is more of an arch-neoconservative organization. Heritate is more conservative and less neoconservative. My own personal choice of this type of thing is the CATO Institute, and Reason magazine. The latter two are more authentically American and Jeffersonian in nature.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 01/15/2011 : 7:53:54 PM
|
Here are a couple of links to political cartoons that show how hysterical and paranoid the liberals are, with respect to the Tea Party and the Arizona killings.
http://comics.com/eric_allie/2011-01-10/
and
http://comics.com/eric_allie/2011-01-11/
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 07:04:31 AM
|
HAPPY GROUNDHOG DAY!
The Supreme Court will have to decide among competing opinions on Obamacare. But one point in the most recent ruling is worth noting. Contrary to the charge that Judge vIdson showed "judicial activism" in killing Obamacare over the lack of a "severability clause," it is known that the Administration, itself, promoted the idea. Arguing that the law was made up of hundreds of intercconnected pieces, and that without the financing from the "individual mandate" the entire remainder was unworkable. This left the Judge little room to have disagreed.
The states need to experiment, trying different combinations of programs, until something workable is hammered out eventually. This could be anything from the previous status down to "single-payer."
|
Edited by - balataf on 02/02/2011 07:17:07 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/08/2011 : 01:05:54 AM
|
21 Governors send Letter to HHS.
This is most of n article by Richard Wolf, USA TODAY:
Twenty-one Republican governors are seeking major changes to President Obama's health care law, even as they support efforts to repeal it and hope the U.S. Supreme Court eventually nullifies it.
In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the governors say they "do not wish to be the federal government's agents in this policy in its present form."
"We wish states had been given more opportunity to provide input when the (law) was being drafted," they wrote. "We believe in its current form, the law will force our health care system down a path sure to lead to higher costs and the disruption or discontinuation of millions of Americans' insurance plans."
They go on to suggest six proposed changes:
•Eliminate all mandates and let states design benefit plans.
•Total state flexibility in operating health insurance exchanges, including which insurers are included. Under the law, exchanges can be run by states or the federal government.
•Waive provisions that discriminate against health savings accounts and other consumer-driven health plans.
•Let states move non-disabled Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchanges.
•Ensure that the federal government pays the full cost of subsidies given to people inside the exchanges.
•Determine how many people will end up in the exchanges and on Medicaid, including any who lose their employer-provided health coverage as a result.
"We hope the administration will accommodate our states' individual circumstances and needs, as we believe the (law) in its current form threatens to destroy our budgets and perpetuate and magnify the most costly aspects of our health care system," the governors wrote. "While we hope for your endorsement, if you do not agree, we will move forward with our own efforts regardless, and HHS should begin making plans to run exchanges under its own auspices."
//////////////////////
It is very hard for me to see how the states can accept the cost burdens of running these "exchanges" without major damage to progrqms like education, infrastructure, and other health care programs. These things needed to be hashed out carefully before this hodgepodge was passed. Pelosi was obviously correct, NOBODY KNEW WHAT DETAILS WER3E IN IT1
|
Edited by - balataf on 02/08/2011 01:09:24 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 05:17:19 AM
|
There is nothing more anti-American and ant-Constitutional than forcing someone at gunpoint to buy a service or product. Why stop at forcing people to buy health insurance? How about forcing everyone to buy a GM product at gunpoint? How about fast-food? Gotta keep those fast-food employees busy. For that matter, how about forcing people at gunpoint to watch a certain television show?
I hope the liberals get my point.
As for McCain, he wants 100 years of war in the Mideast. For me, that puts him over the top as qualifying for a neoconservative. Neos think nothing of spending government money, in the good ol' traditon of FDR and Woodrow Wilson. Those two were the definition of neo-conservatism in some ways, with their love of war.
Neo-conservatism seems to have to started with Trotsky, according to what I have read. It was picked up by Leo Strauss. I believe he was a professor at the University of Chicago. The torch was passed to a fair extent by Irving Kristol, and his son, William Kristol, the little chicken hawk, who was afraid to serve in the military, picked up the leadership role.
The earlier of this undistinguished lot were all Democrats, who advocated war during the 20 century. They left the Democratic Party like so many drowning rats, and joined the GOP in the 1970s. These type of people were highly influential in the younger Bush administration, and many served in the DoD, under Rumsfeld. None of them were really Americans at heart. They taught the GOP to be okay with the welfare state, because the real "prize" was dominating the world, at a high cost, of course. Remember, Bush gave us some real socialist gems in his "administration. Thus we have big spending in welfare and warfare, courtesy of the neocons.
Take indifference to big spending, especially on empire and war, and voila, we have the new GOP. Watching the GOP primary debates last 2008 showed me that the GOP has truly lost its way, in that they abandoned their respect for our Constitutional government. I think the highlight was when Bush said our Constitution was "a (expletive deleted) piece of paper. This and Bush's patent dishonesty about the reason to go to war against Iraq, caused me to lose any respect for him whatsoever.
Some one far greater than Bush, in all ways, namely Eisenhower, would never have gone on a spending spree in Iraq. His statements showed his considered opinion was that if a person who wanted pre-emptive war was advocating it, that person should go fight and die in that war.
What about the Tea Party? That is a good question. I hope it unseats the worst of the neocon lot in the GOP, to the point we can once again function in a true American way. That is, having no alliances (George Washington), not seeking monsters to destroy (John Quincy Adams), and having free trade with all (Jefferson).
If they could bring that about, I would be grateful to them, more than I could say. I'm not sure that they can return Americanism with Palin and Bachmann toeing the neocon line and trying to preach to them, or speak for them. I could hope that the politicians could leave them alone, and let them function as common citizens, whose instincts are right, and whose sensiblities have been roused to action.
We owe it to ourselves to vote each neocon out of office, and humiliate the idealogues and warmakers in their organizations, just as they have done to those who espouse true American principles. Our worst enemy is the neocon. Keep them out of the Tea Party.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 3:36:55 PM
|
Warmskin. Hi!
As noted in a previous thread, the Neo-Cons are descended from a faction of the American Socialist Party. developed after the Communists split off. They switched to the New Deal and remained Democratic into the 1970s. They were the core of Humphrey's 1972 campaing, during which I worked in HHH's Penna. Headquarters, while unemployed after Viet Nam. (That is how my Wife and I were personally victims of one of the Watergate Dirty Tricks.)
At tht time, Jeanne Kirkpatrick led the majority into the Republicans over the McGovernization of the Dems, along with figures like Condi Rice. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was the main one who stayed.
The Neocon's have several major columnists and commentators, like Bill Kristol. Their core since the 1950s has been academics and journalists around New York City, and were overwhelmingly Jewish until Dubya. (I am not Jewish. but my Wife is.)
I am quite puzzled by why you would try to stretch the Neocon label to cover figures like Palin and Bachmann who push very different issues from rather seperate viewpoints. Their current one actively running for president is Ex-Amb. John Bolton, who said a few weeks ago that he would run if it continued that NO OTHER REPUBLICAN was supporting their issues. This is a measure of how weak the small remainder of the Neocons actually are in that every other faction of the 8 within the Republican is bigger and more powerful. Essentially, they have lost and are dying out. I look in vain for any current impact, and would like you to give some specifices on NEOCONS, rather than other types like Palin or Bachmann, that have no relevance to the group.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/10/2011 : 04:06:57 AM
|
I believe that a GOP politician who still thinks the Iraq War was the right thing to do, is a neocon. William Cristol's group, "PNAC," who dreamed up this war back in the 1990s included the hard core of the neocons. What they advocated is still quite relevant in the GOP. The objectives of PNAC were peculiarly anti-American, and put another country before America. Today, most GOP, and for that matter, still proclaim unqualified allegiance to the other country.
I also believe that GOP politicians who want the USA to effectively maintain an overseas empire by means of agression, and stationing troops around the world, in over 130 countries, is not a traditional Republican viewpoint. The GOP believes the USA must be strong, but I would say that the USA is at one of its weakest points right now. The USA cannot act in favor of itself.
It's not that one carries a neocon "card" or has certain lineage, but that one is for war of agression, where we started the conditions of conflict. If one skims through the PNAC site, a person can find the letter issued to Bill Clinton by PNAC. It clearly predates nine 11. It calls for war against Iraq. I hope the Tea Party can go against these menacing people who populated Bush's White House.
There is a gut feeling in the Tea Party that something is not right with America. Big spending by the new-style (neocon) GOP, as well as the FDR-style liberals' big spending habits, is bankrupting this country. The GOP talks a good game once in a while, but still spends, and cannot seem to surmount the huge deficits that started under neocon Bush. Where is the GOP's soul? Who bought it?
We have made a mess of the Mideast, because we could not withstand the neocon advocacy of violence. Time to get out of it, and help those nations over there rebuild to some extent, where we destroyed them. There is one unmentionable nation that we are right now financing the extermination of their people. You can't read it or see it in the major media, but you can read about it in indie news sites, or even the BBC. What we need is another Ike, who will tell the neocons where to go, in diplomatic terms.
I think that following our Founders' advice will restore sanity in foreign matters, and they made eloquent statements about this sort of thing. They worked then, and they will work now. We just need someone with the ability to un-elect those who want war for its own sake. I think that the Tea Party would welcome the Founders' vision of America. They made America possible, and the neocons and liberals, whether intentionally or not, have dismantled the greatest set of laws mankind has ever had.
Nancy Pelosi and Eric Cantor will not lead us to our forgotten heritage, either together or singly.
If you remember Bob Dole's '96 campaign, and the debates, he called the Democratic Party the "war party," and he was correct. Why would the GOP listen to a foreign group of fellows who want to remake the GOP into the image of Wilson and FDR? They have, and the GOP is stuck with it, until it once again becomes the party of no war, or the party who disdains people like the neocons. Why do they ally themselves with people who have repeatedly disgraced them?
Show me a politician who is an apologist for self-defeating wars in the Mideast, and I'll show you a person who advocates neoconservatism. Palin and Bachmann both support Mideast wars today. Incredible! I see no rational reason for staying in the Mideast. We have no interests there, save for buying oil. We can get oil without going to war. We had been buying it for a long time without giving our trading partners a bad time.
Government can't do much right, and trying to dictate to the Mideast is bound to mess it up. I can't think of a sustained period of time when the government had mostly correct answers. I would say -- leave the Mideast alone, stop giving away money to any of them, except for the unmentionable and currently, horribly treated people. The others have enough wealth. The only thing useful we could do now is to help those whose life has been ruined by our leaders. After that, let's keep our money at home, and send the neoconservatism in to oblivion at the ballot box.
All the neocon think-tanks are still in business, such as the "American" Enteprise Institute. We have to make their opinions inoperative, lest they sink us more into defeat and bankrupcty.
War is neocons-ism. Anti-war is American.
I can message you who the unmentionable nation is.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/10/2011 : 12:27:47 PM
|
Warmskin wrote:
"I believe that a GOP politician who still thinks the Iraq War was the right thing to do, is a neocon."
That bears no particular relaqtionship to reality. For example, the Christian Right faction is opposed to very large parts of the Neocon program, yet would, like them, support freedom in Iraq.The large majority of Republicans do, tho very few of them are Neocons. This is over simplistic, like seeing no difference between Welfare Staters and actual Socialists.
You are correct that the minority opposing Iraq are mostly Tea Party and libertarians. But most of the active TP were not previously Republican, according to several polls.
"We have no interest there." (Afghan,)
When the Taliban has a policy of blinding little girls with battery acid for wanting to learn to read, I would say that any DECENT person has an interest there. That is the best example of your "horribly treated people."
The American Enterprize Institute, far from being Neocon, is very business-oriented, as the name implies. Please correct your confusion, by understanding that the Neocons are only one faction out of eight. ASnd Iraq is one out of about 40 Federal issues of note, on top of state and local ones.
It's all really up to the voters. We are all entitled to our own opinions.
|
Edited by - balataf on 02/10/2011 12:47:02 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Tea Party Ten Point Platform
