The Paleoconservative Age: They hate W. – from the right. (A paleocon bestiary)

The New Haven Advocate ^ | July 3, 2003 | Joe Miksch

[VaBthang4]

"But did God say Israel is his chosen people or that Israel is His chosen land?"

Oi Vey Man! Again...both. The people as well as the land are both chosen by God....if you disagree, fine...prove it wrong. Stop attempting to refine your question in search of a certain answer you can then use in order to speak from the specific to the general. Logical fallacy.

"Also, isn't there something in the bible about god [You mean God] condemning the people of Israel to no longer have a land of their own after the people of Israel broke some commandment or other?"

Condemnation is an eternal judgment. As you've asked your question....No.

[Age of Reason]

No inheritance in Israel is to pass from tribe to tribe, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal land inherited from his forefathers.

That wasn't the quote I was thinking of.

I seem to remember something about God ordaining that the people of Israel will no longer have a land on this earth, because they had commited some sin.

And this would have been said by God after Israel had lost their land.

I could remember wrong, though.

[VaBthang4]

None of that answers what I asked you...I find it quite surprising that I answer your falsely motivated questions and yet you are incapable of answer a matter of fact question.

Is it not your assertion that the followers of Islam would simply stop at the waters edge and never attack the United States as long as we stayed completely out of the Middle East?

[VaBthang4]

"That wasn't the quote I was thinking of."

I know it isn't. Look I don't necessarily feel to cast my pearls before swine but I will attempt to enlighten you a bit...

What you're seeking for [in order to justify your false position] is God's warning to the people of Israel that if they disobeyed his commands and worshiped other Gods...then he would scatter them and remove them from the land promised to them...

...with the caveat...

...that if they repented of their ways, sought his face and turned from their wicked ways then he would gather them from the farthest horizon back to their land he originally promised to them as a covenant [as has been done several times throughout history...thus confirming the promise.].

[VaBthang4]

Nehemiah 1;8 "Remember the instruction you gave your servant Moses, saying, 'If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the nations, but if you return to me and obey my commands, then even if your exiled people are at the farthest horizon, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place I have chosen as a dwelling for my Name.' "They are your servants and your people, whom you redeemed by your great strength and your mighty hand.

[TopQuark]

Very well put, Arkinsaw! Please allow me to repeat:

We should be cooperating where we can regardless of what sub-class of conservative we call ourselves.

[Age of Reason]

Is it not your assertion that the followers of Islam would simply stop at the waters edge and never attack the United States as long as we stayed completely out of the Middle East?

Not never, but less likely.

[AmishDude]

Because I don't support these wars that necessarily makes me part of the problem.

It doesn't matter one way or the other. The fact that you brought it up, unsolicited, makes the whole enterprise suspect.

I'm not changing the subject. The subject is neocons.

No it's not. It's Paleocons. Read the title.

Bombing those that disagree with this nation of states into submission? Even if they do not represent a clear and present danger to our nation of states?

Just ask yourself: WWMD? (What would Machiavelli do?)

And I know you're screaming for attention with that ideosyncratic "nation of states" routine, but I don't care. Honestly.

Let me make it perfectly clear for you without stooping to the innuendoes of 'troll-like'.

It isn't an innuendo.

...Wilsonians are calling it today.

Wilsonians? That's 80 years ago! And I thought the Muslims held grudges.

That's not my view. That's the view of the men who founded this nation of states

Yes, I suppose it is safe to say none of them were Wilsonian.Sheesh

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Do you let your friends twist in the wind? Do you think that's an admirable quality?

We are the strongest, most powerful nation on the face of the earth. If we don't stand with our friends and stand for what is right, we don't deserve to be.

[sheltonmac]

Some good thoughts, x.

[eddiespaghetti]

Thank you.

e.s. meatball

[nopardons]

Ever hear of the Monroe Doctrine?

[blackie]

Impressive profile page ~ good job!

Be Ever Vigilant!

[F16Fighter]

"Exactly what kind of people are these self-styled "neocoservatives" anyway?

Isn't there a simpler word to describe them?"

Yeah -- it's called "RINO".

[F16Fighter]

"Paleocons and their ilk are destined to forever bottom-feed in the fever swamps of the lunatic fringe..."

So what you're saying is conservatives shouldn't expect traditional American culture values to be supported; should expect larger more over-officious government; a more over-officious judiciary; more taxation, more socialism, more immigration; Amnesty-for-illegals; and expect American Armed Forces to police every single skirmish in the world without assessment; and disengage from 'America First' policies?

Maybe Kerry ought to become a hawk -- then he'd qualify as a fellow-RINO.

[Age of Reason]

I'm still not sure that's the quote I was thinking of, either--but I'll try to find it when I have time.

Rather than getting bogged down on that issue, I have a larger question to ask.

It's been my understanding that Christianity was originally regarded as a sect of Judaism.

What's more, it seems to me that Christianity is the continuation of Judaism--i.e., that Jesus is the Judaic Messiah.

If I understand this correctly, then it would seem that Christianity is the true Judaism; and that those people who refuse to recognize Christ as Messiah are in error (would it be accurate to say they are heretics?).

And if Christianity is the true Judaism, then the followers of Christianity are the true Jews.

And therefore, would not Christians be the chosen people?

(Mind, I am not trying to antagonize you or anyone; I am genuinely curious about these ideas.)

[VaBthang4]

I am not going to continue to answer your [implied pure motive] questions concerning Israel if you simply glaze over the reality that you've been corrected on some of your own misconceptions/choices.

You have been corrected [point blank] on your intimation that the reasoning the Jews have for claiming the land is erroneous. Leave the obfuscation to Liberals...you either acknowledge your error or refute the answers given. The only person who'll be bogged down here is you...through your own ignorance coupled with an unwillingness to acknowledge the truth.

You need to figure out how this works Bro...you're not draining me with a grip of foundational questions that you should've already learned for yourself [if you indeed been seeking truth versus an opinion/position].

[VaBthang4]

"Not never"

Then your position is destroyed.

[m18436572]

"Metrosexual"... I believe is the term!

[billbears]

It doesn't matter one way or the other. The fact that you brought it up, unsolicited, makes the whole enterprise suspect.

No it's not. It's Paleocons. Read the title

The article is about paleocons. Who but pseudo conservatives craving acceptance use that title about conservatives? The article is written by either a neocon or a liberal. Either way same thing. To discuss paleocons, one must eventually defend the position from pseudo-conservatives. Why don't we just call you guys liberal warhawks?

Just ask yourself: WWMD? (What would Machiavelli do?)

I've got a better one. Ask yourself WWWD (What would Washington do?). Of course if you were to do that, you might see these pseudo-conservatives have stepped far over the line

And I know you're screaming for attention with that ideosyncratic "nation of states" routine, but I don't care. Honestly.

Not screaming for anything. I just choose to accept the fact that this nation of states was established as a voluntary union of separate and sovereign states. It's not 'America'. I don't live in a prepositional phrase. I live in the state of North Carolina that is part of the United States. America denotes not only our nation but Canada, Mexico, etc

It isn't an innuendo.

Oh, a slur, so much better. But what else to expect from psuedo conservative thought processes

Wilsonians? That's 80 years ago! And I thought the Muslims held grudges.

Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat history. Most of what we have faced in the 20th century could be traced back to Wilson's 'spreading democracy' stunt.

Yes, I suppose it is safe to say none of them were Wilsonian.Sheesh

Of course you are more than welcome to find a majority of the Founders that advocated establishment of a strong offensive force capable of establishing our worldview on 3rd world nations 5000 miles away and then using it on them. Good luck though as you won't find any