Posted on 05/17/2005 11:00:31 PM PDT by echoBoomer
Hi,my dear friend. Back from vacation and btting your posts, as usual. :-)
Go Coleman Go.
That said, you know what woulda been really, really cool? To have ZELL MILLER going at this guy. THAT would have been fun. I'd have taped that and watched it over, and over, and over again.
Nothing speaks for itself. The general public doesn't "get it" unless you smack them upside the head, repeatedly, and rub their faces in it.
Coleman should have kicked this guy's teeth in.
But you're correct about having to beat most Americans about the head, to get them to pay attention.
Yeah, and if anything, most senators are even dumber.
Yes, they most assuredly are that. :-(
Galloway was on Charlie Rose...PBS tv...late last night. Nonstop lies from Motormouth Galloway. He never took a penny. He's an idealist. The US went to war to steal Iraqi oil, blah, blah, blah.
Galloway's bank account shows huge deposits from Iraqi connections.
No they dont - -If they did he would never have won his libel cases against The Telegraph and The Christian Science Monitor
The actual definition of a neo-con is somewhat complicated.
Neoconservatism is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization.
Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and a greater acceptance of the welfare state.
Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. Most people described as "neoconservatives" are members of the Republican Party. The term is used more often by those who oppose "neoconservative" politics than those who subscribe to them; indeed, many to whom the label is applied reject it. The term is sometimes used pejoratively, especially by the self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right. From the left, Democratic politicians have used the term to criticize Republican policies and leaders, recently those of the George W. Bush administration.
Critics of the term argue that the word is overused and lacks coherent definition. For instance, they note that many so-called neoconservatives vehemently disagree with one another on major issues. They also point out that the meaning has changed over time. Whereas the term was originally used for former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but aggressively opposed the Soviet Union, now the term is primarily used to describe those who support an aggressive worldwide foreign policy against radical Islam and terrorists. The term is also used to descibe those who are accused of adopting a "unilateral" foreign policy rather than relying on United Nations concensus and actions.
As a rule, the term refers more to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and with Commentary and The Weekly Standard than to more traditional conservative policy think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation or periodicals such as Policy Review or National Review. The neoconservatives, often dubbed the neocons by supporters and critics alike, are credited with or blamed for influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) and George W. Bush (2001–present). Neoconservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a neoconservative initiative.
"Galloway's bank account shows huge deposits from Iraqi connections."
Is this evidence or just your opinion? It does beg the question why isn't it in the senate report. Source/link please!
I don't think our senators should have been out-of-control. They should have ripped this guy a new one. Those are two different things. If a factual, well-constructed, angry attack on an evil person amounts to "losing it," then we might as well fold up and go home.
Pat always has a grain of truth in what he says but takes it too far. One could argue why not let the Commies and Nazis kill each other off?
He's a lawyer. Need we say more.
Political views
He has a reputation as a fiery left-winger. He is an advocate of redistribution of wealth, greater spending on welfare benefits, and extensive nationalisation of large industries. He opposes independence for Scotland. He supports the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. As a practising Roman Catholic he is personally opposed to abortion, although he supports RESPECT's policy of promoting a woman's right to choose. He supported the equalisation of the age of consent for homosexuality. As a Labour MP he was a member of the Socialist Campaign Group. In the 2001 Parliament he voted against the whip 27 times, placing him as the 9th most rebellious MP.
Galloway has attracted most attention for his comments on foreign policy, taking a special interest in Libya, Pakistan, Iraq and Palestine. His support for the Palestinian cause began in 1974 when he met a Palestinian activist in Dundee; he converted the rest of the Dundee Labour Party which flew the Palestinian flag over the Town Hall and twinned the city with Nablus. His involvement with Iraq began after the war in 1991 when he visited the country to observe the effects of United Nations sanctions.
In an interview with the Guardian, Galloway outlined his political views in relation to the Soviet Union:
"I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.