| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 04/05/2011 : 01:12:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by homenude
Aren't these discussions about Israel, neo-cons, etc. a bit off topic?
Interesting question, HN. However, I believe that the Tea Party will succeed insofar as the neocons fail. The two are oil and water, but the necon thinking is attempting to setup a confluence of their goals with the goals of the Tea Party's. I hope that the Tea Party could be successful in shrinking gov't spending in all categories, before our debt is even more unsustainable.
Neocon Micheal Ledeen has called for a "spectaclur state." He's a necon, and poses as a conservative, yet I belive that his ideas are in complete opposition to the Tea Party's. That is why I bring these guys up, and express my deep concern about their designs on America.
Hard to bring up the Tea Party, without bringing up Democrats, neocons, and countries that have phenomenal influence on our candidates.
The godfather of the Tea Party, Ron Paul, has the foreign lobbyists at bay, and they know not to go to him to get favors. That is why I support Ron Paul.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/14/2011 : 10:13:19 AM
|
Most of the Tea Party adherents prefer Palin and Bachmann, who also owe nothing to foreign influence, but whose support overlaps between the Tea Party and the Christian Right. The Christian Right owes nothing to any foreign influence, but bases its Mideast Policy on a scriptural basis. Neocons totally reject this reasoning.
Hamas, by firing an anti-tank round into an Israeli schoolbus, without provocation, did not shine with glory. On must be very challenged in the moral department to support their behaviour.
////////////////////////
I listened to our President's reply to Rep. Ryan"s budget plan, hoping for a serious response so that we can begin to repair the economy.
Figurtively, what I heard was "squeek, squeek." as he told us again that we should raise taxes in a rotten economy
He won't let go! He clings to his errors!
Here's some wise old advice:
"You;ve got to put down the duckie if you want to play the saxophone."
|
Edited by - balataf on 04/14/2011 10:17:17 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/16/2011 : 07:28:57 AM
|
Palin had only one flag in her office, besides an American flag -- the Israeli flag. She knows she has to get them to contribute to her campaign via her appearances at AIPAC meetings. She even came out and advocated that more Palestinians need to lose their homes. So, she is pure neocon material.
I would challenge her to make just one statement that shows she disagrees with one Israeli policy. She can't do it. She would lose their supportive money. Same goes for Bachmann. Neither has the courage to tell Israel to do something different from what they are now doing. The both of them need to figure out what country they support above all -- America or Israel. The two countries have very differnt goals, and cannot be equated in their purpose in existing.
If foreign soldiers were all over my country causing death and destruction, I might be angry enough to fire rockets at the country who made my decades of suffering possible and necessary. It would not be the right thing to do, but if someone pushes my back to the wall, I might very well do things that were not normally in my moral code.
Never ceases to amaze me how people think that other people were born to suffer. I am for the people who have no voice, and who have almost no defense against a state who bullies them. Palestine has no effective lobby group in America, and does not have massive influence on politics and the media in America as does its northern "neighbor." I am not aware of any Palestinian Air Force, Navy, or Army. Just some rag-tag angry guys who fire rockets.
I am for America, first and foremost. I am not in favor of it groveling in front of foreigners who have attacked the US not less than twice. So far, they are the only state whose formal military, in the Mideast, who have attacked us and our military. The rest of the attacks have been performed by the usual zealots. See the BBC video clip -- one hour long, that shows one of the Israeli attacks, and clearly shows the lies of LBJ and McNamara, and our very special ally, after the event occurred. Of course the NSA, thank heaven, destroyed the lies put out by our special ally to cover their kiesters. Leave it to LBJ to surrender to our ally, by forcing the US Navy not to protect American sailors. Treason!
Here is proof positive of Israel's intentional attack on America. It's a small version of Pearl Harbor. "Only" one ship was attacked by our special ally. The first link expires on 4/29/11.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311#
After 4/29/11, this video can be seen with this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6TdhlDTog8
All Americans should see this video. Only a neocon would dispute the overwhelming evidence that our ally did this with great deliberation.
So, the idea that poor little Israel, being waifs, have zero influence on American politics, foreign policies, has no basis in reality. (they were one of the most unfortunate people in history back in the 1940s, but times have changed). Each congressman and senator knows this, but are afraid to say it, lest they lose office. So far, only two former GOP and two former Democrat congressional critters have spoken out about it -- Chuck Percy, Paul Findley, Wm. Fullbright, and Fritz Hollings.
It's funny how folks cringe when facts hit them. I didn't want to believe this at first, because I was a fan of Israel. However, how I can I have a liking for a state that drops white phosphorous bombs on innocent, and helpless families with children (1400 to 1500 people died from these cruel burns, as well as from conventional American bombs). I recently saw a PowerPoint show that revealed gruesome, horrible photos of children whose skin was burned off their body, because of the illegal white phosphorous bombings by Israel. I had to stop the slideshow because I was so nauseated by it, and I have seen body parts in war. I felt digusted that I had to pay taxes to support this horrible war on families by a ruthless state.
A few rockets (which ought not to have been fired at Israel), compared to nearly 1500 horrible deaths by the burning of skin, is highly lopsided. Neocons speak only of Israeli deaths, all of which are very tragic, but do not mention the large amounts of death imposed by Israel, as if the Palestinians were worthless animals. I do remember that an Israeli official said that the a million Arabs were not worth an Isreali fingernail. Don't be mad at me, I am just quoting this statement.
No wonder the UN has condemned Israel on so many occasions. I.e., almost all of this diverse world condemned Israel for their violations of the Geneva Conventions, their war crimes, and their crimes against humanity.
When was the last time a nation committed this many crimes? Hmmm, the USSR, China, Hussein's Iraq, Pol Pot, or old Nazi Germany, Kaganovich's mass extermination of Ukrainian Christians? Perhaps I exagerate. I really don't know. I can hope this will come to a halt through international force, because otherwise there will never be peace. The idea that the US must take sides in this is not only against everything the USA stands for, it serves only to pour gasoline on the fires there. Peace must be imposed by neutral nations as soon as possible. Israel, Palestine, or America are not in a position to do any good.
So, back to the Tea Party, it has shifted quite a bit. To wit, Ron Paul, the original Tea Party guy, is opposed by the Tea Party, and especially so when he was opposed by them in his own primary last 2010. I predict the Tea Party will become quite mainstream. Too many people will it to be so, and they have power.
The necons are not going away; they know how to get power and influence. They are highly accomplished people who will not take a back seat. Mark my word. Who will oppose them in the GOP? If the GOP returned to its old roots, the neocons would go back to being Democrats as they once were.
I find it very amusing that the GOP is now relying on the the people who once were big advocates of the Democrats' wars. If you remember in 1996, Bob Dole called the Democrats the war party. Given 20th century history, he was right, save for the original Gulf War.
How things change, including parties. At least the Libertarian Party stays the same -- American.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/16/2011 : 3:52:17 PM
|
Itr is very strange that you think having an Israeli flag makes her a Neocon. Being a Neocon involves a wide variety of issues of which she shares almost none, and even support for Israel is done for reasons contrqry to the Neocons' positiom.
Are you trying to pretend that ALL pro-Israel Hawks are Neocons? Actually, most are not, only a small minority, and even they have mostly faded out in the past few years. The ANTI-NEOCON Christian Right is more Hawkish than the Neoons.
The Tea Party already is "quite mainstream," and, while I do not expect their primary figures, like Ex-Gov. Palin, Rep. Bachmann, Sen. Paul or Sen. Rubio to be nominated, you can bet that the nominee will be someone acceptable to the vast majority of the movement. Rep. Ryan is one good shot for V.P.
Just as the US. Socialist Party mostly merged into the New Deal blend, the Libertarian movement's equal success is yielding a combined Republican Pary, as you can see by my listing of five top Tea Party figures above.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/16/2011 : 9:51:52 PM
|
I endeavor to use references when I state something. Neocons, by their own definition are ardently pro-Israel, as explained by former Wall Street Journal editor, Max Boot.
Taken from:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/
"Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a “key tenet of neoconservatism.” He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush “sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.” (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)"
Took me just a second to find most any reference regarding neocons and Israelis.
Also by definition of the law in Israel, the majority of these neocons are dual-citizen types, and not purely American in their outlook.
I find it odd that a governor would display any flag other then his/her own state or country's flag. I could see it if that was his or her own country of origin, as in Gov. Schwarzenegger's own native Austrian flag. Why not display the flag of Brazil or India instead of Israel? Why Israel in particular?
I'm not pretending, just stating facts. Neoconism started with the people who favored Israel, and also started with the Bolsheviks, and not from the admirers of Jefferson. Take Leo Strauss, Leon Trotsky, Irving Kristol, and his son, William Kristol. Add to that, Pearle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Elliot Abrams, David Horowitz, Michael Ledeen, Congressman Cantor, Robert Spencer, a gaggle of journalists, and the list goes on and on. Oh, and let's not forget that Ledeen wants the USA to have a "spectacular state." He didn't mention how he would pay for that. Maybe Uncle Bernanke will print more money for this new idea of Ledeen's.
What you have among the non-Israeli citizens are Palin, Cheney, Bachmann, most of the GOP, etc. The GOP is so beholden to Israeli money and power, they literally cannot stay with the conservative message of very limited spending. The budget and deficit increased during the Bush years,even with a GOP Congress. That is not conservatism. So, why didn't an all GOP government act like conservatives during most of the Bush years?
Under Neocon Rusmfeld, $2.3 trillion disappeared. Necon Dov Zakheim (sp?) was his chief accountant at that time. How does one "lose" that amount of money? Neocons do, and I wonder where that money went. Any American should wonder, and demand to know.
The original Tea Party's purpose will be melded with establishment thinking, if the original Tea Party believes in the silly notions of Palin and Bachmann, both of whom want very much for the Tea Party to think like them. It is too tempting to let a lot of people run around not being loyal to a party, or division of a party. Palin, Bachmann, and their likes, to me, act more live cattle drovers, trying to keep the herd moving in one particular direction. That direction is not organically American in nature. Rather it is in the ersatz American direction.
The Libertarians are quite different from the GOP. They don't believe in the present fruitless and unconstitutional wars, and the latest involvement in Libya. They don't believe in drug wars, or other intrusions into the life of people. They much more liberty-minded than the GOP. I don't see the GOP doing away with the drug laws anytime soon, or with wars against countries that do not threaten the USA.
I find the Libertarians had been a combination of Republicans and Democrats, although lately not very much like the Republicans. It's a party that has its own particular principles, and is unlike the other parties. The main politicians of the past that most emulated Libertarianism were Grover Cleveland, Warren Harding, and Goldwater. It is the party of the non-Hamiltonian Founders, and of smaller and more relaxed government. Neither the GOP or the Democratic Party can deliver that type of government. Both of them are locked into huge government.
The only sane politicians that I see in the GOP are Ron Paul, and a few who are like them. Interesting how the GOP rejects these honorable men, although the RNC leaders did do a near 180 after they saw the large draw that Ron Paul had, and the counter-convention he held, that drew an awful lot of people. There is a video on youtube that shows a conference of the RNC folks semi-praising Ron Paul.
I would say Romney has a good chance given his quite neocon-ish performance at the last GOP primary debates, but he is another McCain, alhtough younger. To put it more colorfully, Romney would be the third term of Bush, the younger. The predominant views of the nominee will be much the same as we have heard before --wars, growing deficits, no trimming back of the welfare state, inflating our way our of debt, and so on.
As some people say -- we have a one party - two party system. No matter who you elect, nothing changes, except for a few things. Health care is one of them. Bloated war and welfare budgets continue under both parties, until the American Empire falls of its own weight, like all other ones have.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/18/2011 : 10:57:05 PM
|
Certainly the Neocons are passionately pro-Israel, I never said otherwise. BUT SO ARE MANY OTHERS like the majority of Tea Partiers, including Bachmann and Palin. Most issues are supported by a variety of groups, like this one.
Socialists supported goverment controls on utilities, but so do others, like Green politicians.
Generally, a strong military, has had liberal support from Big Labor, as well as from conservatives.
Open free trade is supported overwhelmingly by Neocons, but also by Libertarians.
Very few Neocons have dual citizenship, and the Israeli law simply follows the laws of Moses, that the children of a Jewish Mother can get automatic Israeli citizenship, ONLY IF THEY MOVE TO ISRAEL!
As far as Palin and the flags. Where was the picture taken?
The Christian Right often gives money to Israel rather than taking it.
The Libertarian Party isn't in the GOP. Those libertarian-leaning ones elected as Republicans, like Ron Paul and Rand Paul, obviously are Republicans. Your statement is confused. Control rests with the voters: The Republican Party's direction is determined by how the primaries come out, as with both Pauls.
You don't think that Ryan's budget, with almost the entire House Republicans backing it, isn't a huge change of direction? It's gigantic, and a huge win for the Tea Party. I'm eager to see what will happen on the debt ceiling and the 2012, where the House adopted Ryan's plan. Let the negotiations begin!
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 03:42:35 AM
|
I fully agree that neocons are highly and staunchly pro-Israel, and I might add pro-Israel whether it's right or wrong. When wrong, they dare not say so.
The neocons admire Machiavelli (sp?), with Michael Ledeen being one of his biggest admirers. Actually, so does Hillary Clinton, that not so lovable creature.
Equally lovable is Rahm Emmanuel who, although he tries to be an American, is really an Israeli at heart, and fought in their army instead of ours. Why did he not enlist in our army. There is the dual citizenship at work. You may be right about actual technical citizenship, but where one's heart is, there is his/her country.
Jefferson made an insteresting statement, and I quote- "Dispersed as the Jews are, they still form one nation, foreign to the land they live in." I wasn't so sure about the accuracy of that statement for some time, but after learning more and more about neocons, folks like Emmanuel do seem to prove Jefferson partially correct.
However, there are many, many Jewish people across America who love America and much prefer here vis-a-vis their other potential homeland. Some are fantastic patriots, like Irving Berlin, and many like him. He was grateful to be an American, and knew it was the best place for him.
The neocons, on the other hand arguably are more fanatic about Israel than they are about America. The GOP, who now hosts the neocons, are experiencing some mixed signals about the Likudishness of the GOP. I don't know to what degree the GOP can treat Israel like just any other small country. For the most part, they are powerless to do that, although it would be helpful to America is they did. All things in good proportion.
Here is an article that suggests this, however subtly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/world/middleeast/26diplo.html?_r=2&hp
Seems Rand Paul, a Tea Party darling, is at most, lukewarm about Israel. Will that be a trend in the GOP, or just an anamoly? Hard to say.
I wonder how Bachmann and Palin would handle a press conference where they were asked their opinions of the USS Liberty. Now that would be a moment of awkwardness for the both -- whether to side with Israel or with the American sailors. What a quandry that would be for them!!
I'll have to get the info about Palin's flag display in her former office. I had heard it from several sources.
People like Michael Medved suggest that the outsiders who differ from the GOP, yet stand for vaguely similar ideas, join the GOP. His idea would be to neutralize these folks, given that the GOP neocons would drown them out.
So, it goes with the Libertarians. They want neither major party, because of substantial differences. Ron Paul, who is a complete libertarian, figures that he can get more power through the GOP, even though the GOP rejects him, within the rank and file. At least he has benefited handily with the bully pulpit of running for president. He told the naked (had to sneak that in) truth about our American situation, and was rejected.
What I would like to see is a food fight within each major party, to battle for the soul of each party. The most conflicted party is the GOP. Running up deficits, spending more money than their Democratic predecessors, and the like. That caused me to leave the GOP- that and the takeover of the GOP by the neocons. I had good company in that departure, by the way, although I did not vote for Obama, for obvious reasons.
Ron Paul had some critcal words for the GOP's deficit reduction. The deficit will grow. The GOP had their chance last decade when they owned all the elected bodies of government. They blew their chance. But then, neocons don't put much stock in cutting budgets when their need for a "spectacular state" is deep within them.
Massive spening programs, like Bush's new program in medicine, the expensive wars, endless and injudicious welfare that has become a third rail, and so much more, are undefeatable impediments to fiscal sanity, unless Ron Paul's words are heeded carefully, and without belly-aching by the GOP.
If the GOP wins the White House, they need to learn from their heavy defeats in 2006 and 2008. But can they? That remains to be seen. 2010 was a rejection of Obama, and the arrogance of Congress, and not because of a love affair with the GOP. The GOP just happened to be the alternative place to go. If the economy picks up, despite Obama's failure, it will be that much harder fo the GOP to win in 2012. If they promise more wars, as did McCain - 100 years - they might as well not run anyone in 2012.
On the other hand, if they can stop the wars, make drastic improvements in fiscal policy, they have a much better chance. If they do that, I would re-register as a Republican, but otherwise not. That is up to the GOP, and their anxiousness, or lack of it, for more neocon thinking. Do the voters want 4 to 8 more years of Richard Perle, William Cristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and all their ilk? I don't think so. They had a pretty good taste of it from 2001 - 2009, and it didn't do down well in the long run.
Time for another Eisenhower, to regain our world-wide reputation, honor, and fairness. It is time for that.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/19/2011 : 05:51:28 AM
|
As promised, here is a link about Palin's Israeli flag, and one other thing - her lapel pin flag of Israel.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127445
How American can one get? I really do hope that Palin figures out which country she supports more.
The following short video clip shows Palin has no decency, no honor, no Christian characteristics, and no sanity. She counters what Eisenhower forced on Israel. Picking between the very superstitious Palin and Eisenshower's policies, I'll take Ike's ideas any day. Ike forced Israel to get out of Palestine, in a drawn out feud with Ben-Gurion, the land stealing geezer. Ike forced Gurion to leave Palestine, and the latter, like a petulant child, ordered the burning of all the settlements the unlawful Israelis made in Palestine, before leaving. I would love to have a real leader once again who does not stoop to being an errand boy or girl for Israel. No state has the right to take land from another one. What if Canada stole some of our land? We might be a tad upset.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRohtFov-10&playnext=1&list=PL04C701E841E69F7C
In that video, Barbara Walters, herself Jewish, questions Palin somewhat about stealing more Palestinian land for Palin's expected population boom in Israel. Really? A boom? I doubt it sincerely, but Palin doesn't care about international laws that only civilized countries obey. Is she an international outlaw? Technincally, no, but if she were elected president, she probably would be.
The horrible thing is that she wants to be a "leader" of the Tea Party. She could be, and if she were publically acclaimed as that party's leader, the people would then me just another neocon-comliant mob. How different she is from the original Tea Party of old.
So, it comes down to Palin v. Ike (in memoriam). Pragmatism versus superstitious thinking. Easy choice!
About the "Christian" right, they do indeed support Israel. This comes from their denial of the teachings of Jesus, in part, and their mistaken idea that Jesus will return when Israel takes Jerusalem and makes it the capital of Israel, and even of the world. How mistaken they are, and they are an offense to Jesus' message.
I have to feel sorry for the naivete of the congregations as their respective leaders convince them to abandon the true Christian message.
One of their uberfuehrers, Pastor John Hagee,a staunch McCain supporter, who loves to attend as many AIPAC meetings as possible, denies that Jesus is the Messiah, which is very strange for a Christian pastor. I guess he wants to drop his principles to be a quasi-center of AIPAC power, if that is possible. Hard to come up with any other explanation. I wonder what is the actual opinion about Hagee among the high and mighty within AIPAC.
His denial of Jesus is tantamount to a Muslim denying Mohammed in front of the faithful. That is what passes for thinking within the "Christian" right these days. Promotion of Israel is first and foremost. Forget Jesus' message and main theme, they say. They're going to have to get their heads and hearts staightened out. Heaven forbid that the Likud Christians ever read the Sermon on the Mount. If they did, they would be shocked. If they came to their senses, they would fire a whole lot of pastors, and other parsons.
I much prefer the Presbyterians, although I am not one of them. They stay on message, and are not influenced at all by AIPAC.
Is there really anything wrong with not being fanatically or just passionately pro-Israel?
I guess I am just pro-American, and gratefully so. I also guess, in the eyes of others, that is not enough. I admit to my passion for organic American principles.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 02:41:54 AM
|
I need to retract a statement I made. Rare for me. <yeah,right!>
I spoke too critically about Paul Ryan. He is definitely giving us a more economical budget, if the rest of the crowd would go along with it.
What I wish he would do is offer the end of some White House departments, and end all the wars. That would be a better answer to what Ryan would like to give us. Still, Ryan is pushing in the right direction. Gotta like him for that!!
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 3:23:02 PM
|
In a parliamentry regime, multiple viewpoints run seperate parties, and these parties negotiate, forming a government on which the basic majority can asgree. Cainet departments and legislative leadership are parceled out based on voter strength. The current British coalition of Conservatives and Liberals is a good example.
In a system like the American, viewpoints are fought out mostly in primaries, and the two main coalitions go head-to-head, with most swing voters picking the basic direction they want to see for the nation. This is what Medvedev was referring to, when the choice probably boils down to Obama, the winning Republican and the dozen or so tiny splinter parties, who usually make up one to two percent of the vote.
Essentially, the Tea Party has captured the Republicans, and the Libertarian Party is extremely likely to become insignificant, just as the Socialists collapsed and hundreds of their elected officials were re-elected as New Deal Democrats. The 2012 Republican primaries wilo work that way if the various Tea Party factions feel that the process treated them fairly. The outcome will certainly produce someone acceptable to most Tea Partiers, but unlikely to be a hard libertarian presidential nominee, based on raw popular votes.
When the voters have spoken in several primaries, we will see better what the relative strengths of various factions are. This is the largest part of steering national policy choices.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
homenude
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/27/2011 : 5:57:11 PM
|
Forgive me for asking this question, but isn't bashing neo-cons (Whoever they are!) a politically correct way of being anti-Semitic?
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 56 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/29/2011 : 01:53:18 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by homenude
Forgive me for asking this question, but isn't bashing neo-cons (Whoever they are!) a politically correct way of being anti-Semitic?
Not at all. Palestinians are Semitic. Is not failing to critize necons being anti-American. Plenty of people within the Jewish community feel exactly like I do. My doctor for one. How can one be anti-Semitic and Jewish at the same time?
Something to ponder for you. Do you think American troops should put their life on the line everytime a neocon can think up a new war, when the bulk of neocons were and are too cowardly to serve in the Armed Forces?
You might put America first, and foreigners second. I think you do, but don't fall into the neocon trap that every war they invent is to save America. It's not. It's to further their own selfish goals.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/29/2011 : 01:58:53 AM
|
Balataf said. "...the Socialists collapsed and hundreds of their elected officials were re-elected as New Deal Democrats."
The importance of the Socialists is not how well their party performed over time, but rather what ideas of theirs took root, and what ideas of theirs are we stuck with, today.
Parties come and go, but what they achieve tends to last a long time. All the libertarians want is for the Constitution to be obeyed, and ultimately for America to reflect what our Founding Fathers set up for us. The GOP and Democrats don't want the US Consitution to be fully enforced. If they did, most of government and its actions would go away.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
jbsnc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/29/2011 : 4:16:49 PM
|
"No state has the right to take land from another one. What if Canada stole some of our land? We might be a tad upset."
IMHO there isn't now nor ever been a Palestinian State. We should have taken Canada and Mexico.
The Palestinians built homes in Jordan and the government bulldozed them and ran the Palestinians out of Jordan.
I am fan of Sarah Pallin. Ask her a question and she generally directly answers. Few politicians do likewise.
Happy Nuding.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 153 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/29/2011 : 4:58:56 PM
|
Correct, there has never been a Palestinian state in all history. The area was under several dozen empires since Rome deposed the Herodias. After that, the only independent state within the modern Israeli area was the Cruaders' Kingdom of Jerusalem from 1099, with coastal outposts lasting to 1191.
There is a chapter comparing ancient Judea, the Crusaders and Israel and their extremely similar reactions to extremely similar problems on the exact same landscape. Even to multi-ethnic tensions in the new melting pot society.
This is in my book, "Politicometrics." www.groups.yahoo.com/group/Politicometrics
Anyone can read, but you must join to post.
|
Edited by - balataf on 04/29/2011 5:04:43 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
