Neo-conned

The Liberty Committee ^ | July 10, 2003 | Rep. Ron Paul

[Poohbah]

Because the thought never occurred to them I imagine that this 'free' nation of states would ever engage in a preemptive war.

Preemptive wars were known tools of statecraft at that time. Had the Founding Fathers wished to actually prohibit such wars, then they could very well have done so. Instead, they simply conveyed the authority to declare war to the Congress, without restriction.

[A. Pole]

Preemptive wars were known tools of statecraft at that time. Had the Founding Fathers wished to actually prohibit such wars, then they could very well have done so. Instead, they simply conveyed the authority to declare war to the Congress, without restriction.

Yes - to the Congress. They repeatedly warned against giving such royal power to the President.

[ricpic]

If Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are neo-cons according to Ron Paul, than why isn't GW one as well?

[Smile-n-Win]

Why did those 19 people decide they would die and take thousands of us with them?

Well, they obviously didn't do it out of self-defense, as it was their design right from the outset to commit suicide.

What kind of a person commits suicide when he could live, work, trade, and be happy instead? Only one kind of person does that sort of thing: an irrational person--a nihilist who doesn't believe in anything.

By the very nature of irrationality, you cannot reason an irrational person out of his destructive intentions, nor can you "non-intervene" to stop him. The only thing you can do to save your life from him is to kill him before he kills you.

See my new tagline.

[huck von finn]

HERE IS ANOTHER THREAD THAT MENTIONS THE NEOCONS:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/944674/posts

[Smile-n-Win]

Why do the paleo-cons and the loony left fear victory? Why do they fear the removal of regimes hostile to this country? Why do they fear promoting the cause of political and economic freedom abroad?

Because they refuse to distinguish right from wrong. They want to respect the rights of those who don't respect the rights of others. They want freedom for the enemies of freedom.

There are three kinds of people: those who are irrational and evil; those who mean well but are irrational; and people like you and me. Dr. Paul falls in the second category.

[JohnGalt]

Bush stopped the tanks at the Syrian and Iraninian borders; that is the evidence cited that he ceased listening to his neocon advisors who have led him astray.

[LiberalBuster]

Up with conservatism and FreeRepublic of yesteryear. Down with the current neo-con administration and what FreeRepublic has become (an apologist forum for neo-cons).

Just based on the # of responses to this message, it's obvious that Paul's message has struck a lot nerves. As they say, the truth hurts.

[Smile-n-Win]

The point here is that due to our imperialist agenda nations will be forced to attack us or be assimilated.

Would it be a bad thing if a truly free and moral nation (i.e. I'm not talking about the present-day United States) pursued a policy that led to nations being assimilated to that nation ?

If yes, why? If not:

For all its flaws, the United States is still much freer than the nations it causes to "assimilate." An "imperialist" policy thus leads to a significant increase in the global amount of freedom. Perhaps a couple of the nations we've "assimilated" will want to be even freer than we are once they see the blessings of capitalism.

Whetting people's appetites for freedom is an excellent way of promoting it.

But of course the point is moot, since the United States is NOT pursuing any imperialist agenda; she is defending herself from an immediate and very serious threat to her life that has been evident since 9/11/01.

[Smile-n-Win]

Ron's speech for dummies...

Government Bad.
Liberty Good.
Governemnt is getting bigger.
Liberty is getting lesser.

Are you aware you have just cast Dr. Paul as an anarchist?

[Smile-n-Win]

One of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is Make them obey their own rules. Our strength..our very Constitution and Bill of Rights is used to further causes that would do away with both.

You nailed it.

The mindset of "freedom for communists," "let terrorists live," "rights for criminals" is THE cause of the decline of freedom in America--not some obscure Jewish conspiracy that Rummy is part of.

One of the peacenik celebrities--I forget which one--promised to leave America if Bush gets elected. Someone ought to sue him to have his promise enforced. You have a right to speak your mind--but don't be surprised if we assume you mean what you say.

[Smile-n-Win]

As a side-note, in discounting the views of "former Trotskyists," Ron Paul apparently reveals himself to be insane: the epithet seems to be reflect a belief that it's impossible for a person to change their political views. If that's the case, only an insane or irrational man would try to change peoples' political views. And Mr. Paul is trying to do just that.

Brilliant!

[Smile-n-Win]

Ever wonder why we never tried to win it and why the Dems and the establishment GOP got so upset when Reagan really did want to actually win?

Hmmmmmm, so now that President Bush really wants to win, why do you get so upset? ;-)

[Smile-n-Win]

The only freaking guy up there that is screaming for us to get out of the UN (the single biggest threat to our Constitutional way of governance IMO) while the rest of congress and people like yourself whistle dixie.

Assume that getting out of the UN was only achievable through war. President Bush asks Congress to declare war. Does that make him an evil imperialist warmonger?

If you answered no: Terrorism is the single biggest threat to our very lives, and the only way to avert that threat is to bring the war to the terrorists before they bring more of their terror to us. This, you have implied, makes the President an evil imperialist warmonger. What's the difference?

[Smile-n-Win]

Whose mistake and objective do you refer to, Paul's or the neocons?

My objective (with posting the thread) and Paul's mistake.

[Smile-n-Win]

Just based on the # of responses to this message, it's obvious that Paul's message has struck a lot nerves.

All threads involving libertarianism tend to have a high number of comments.

[u-89]

Hmmmmmm, so now that President Bush really wants to win

What do you draw your conclusion from? Quotes like "this war could last longer than our life times"?

[u-89]

As a side-note, in discounting the views of "former Trotskyists," Ron Paul apparently reveals himself to be insane: the epithet seems to be reflect a belief that it's impossible for a person to change their political views.

Brilliant!

----------------------------------------------------------

Did you ever think that some people never changed their views all that much? - changed teams, yes. Perhaps some ideas around the edges but not core beliefs. Neoconservatism does not mean someone who is new to conservatism it means a new type of conservatism. If you ever heard any of the neocons speak or read their works all their political idols are democrats - to this day! New kind of conservatism indeed.

[Smile-n-Win]

What do you draw your conclusion from?

Well, he's trying.

Or do you think the US isn't fighting hard enough? Should we have a larger military budget, and attack more regimes at a faster rate? Then why didn't you say that first? ;-)

[Poohbah]

Yes - to the Congress. They repeatedly warned against giving such royal power to the President.

Quite true. Which is why the Congress of the United States authorized the President to go after anyone who even knows how to spell Osama bin Laden's name correctly.