Most of the members of PNAC have stated their positions in books and other writings. They believe in a Machiavellian foreign policy.You're calling Dick Cheney “Machiavellian”?
The source was the office of Congressman Ron Paul.
The source of that newsletter is well known, but the Paul haters continue to bring it up.
As JimRob has stated clearly several times, FR is not a free-speech soapbox for leftists, racists, and nutjobs to spout off
It is hard for me to imagine that a forum that advocates free speech would bar almost any type of discussion.
That is because Ron Paul and his supporters don't merit anything above derision.
It is the anti RP people who have resorted to name calling and derogatory comments
You’re calling Dick Cheney “Machiavellian”?
Is that you, Keith Olbermann?
I think you’re on the wrong forum, buddy.*****
Well, the neocons have openly supported Machiavellian ideas, so if he supports them, he must be Machiavellian.
****The source was the office of Congressman Ron Paul.
He blamed it on a staffer. Real classy.
So basically Ron Paul vets his closest staffers about as well as the Clintons vet their campaign donors?
Is that excuse supposed to fly?
Where does the buck stop, Ronny-boy?
And he wants to be President of the United States of America!
What a joke.****
Oh, whoever your horse is has never had a mistake in his/her life?
***It is hard for me to imagine that a forum that advocates free speech would bar almost any type of discussion.
As JimRob has stated clearly several times, FR is not a free-speech soapbox for leftists, racists, and nutjobs to spout off*****
On TH, leftists and nutjobs were defeated by reasoned arguments or by ignoring them. A few racists were barred.
****That is because Ron Paul and his supporters don’t merit anything above derision.****
If Ron Paul supporters are so bad, you could show it in reasoned arguments. Name calling and stupid pictures do not constitute debate.
****We cannot allow ourselves to be hijacked by a bunch of mental patients. FR stands out in the world as a legitimate voice for the conservative movement.
We must be clear every step of the way that people like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan do not represent our views, and we do not endorse or condone them.****
I would agree with you if it was still the FR of the middle to late 90’s. Now I am not so sure. One of the reasons I left FR a few years back was its barring of dissenting opinion. Surely if dissenting opinion is so bad it can be shown so by intellectual arguments, not by barring it.
Pat B. is still one of my main men. It was not advocating anything in the middle east that he was not advocating for the rest of the world. I do not believe that he is an anti-semite. He was advocating for the middle east the same thing he was advocating for the rest of the world. He had a Jewish co-host that came out in support of him.
****Most of these Paul Qaeda types are just here trying to make us look bad so people like Bill O’Reilly has a boogeyman on the right to demagogue so he looks “Fair and Balanced”.****
I think the site provides more ammunition for Bill O’Reilly by barring speech than if would if it allowed open speech. I read somewhere earlier today that Giuliani threads are forbidden on this site. Pretty silly. Giuliani probably has less than ten supporters on this site. A Giuliani thread would probably not make it past the first page. In contrast almost any post about Ron Paul generates several hundred responses.