Ron Paul publicly names neoconservatives

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Where's your proof? Sources, sources.

Already posted it. Sorry you pissed it

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Actually, "No Confidence" would be the best wording for that kind of vote...But if you're going to bash Ron Paul for being the only candidate that actually works for his country

No. He's not. He's a demagogue, nothing more. I cannot help it if you've been blinded and duped by his pretty words. It's such a terrible shame too. On the surface he has such wonderful ideas. I was a former supporter.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
why not at least spend equal time bashing the other candidates for working only for themselves, as revealed by documented evidence?

Well, first the other candidates are not the subject of this thread. And second, no one needs me to bash them; the evidence is already out there.



[edit on 15-5-2008 by SaviorComplex]

That was a pretty good speech by Ron Paul.
However, to get a much better view of the neo cons, and how they came about I suggest you watch the three videos in this thread.
Scroll to the last post and use the links there. As the links have changed since it was first posted. They are well worth watching.

Originally posted by thetruth777
Please support your views with links and documentation, and they better not be Fox News.

Jeez...doesn't anyone bother to read the threads before posting?

Since you missed it, here it is again...

Once again, you make the disinfo agent claim without one shred of proof.

Let me remind every Ron Paul supporter that a new candidate has entered the race for the white house on the Libertarian ticket and he's a former GA congressman named Bob Barr and shares similar beliefs as Dr. Paul. I'm excited about this because I will actually have my vote go towards someone worthy of running this country.

reply to post by Peepers

Originally posted by Peepers
Wolfowitz looks like the devil reincarnate..

Actually, he looks like he could be RP's brother.

Here is an unforgettable commentary by Keith Olberman last night concerning the neocon at the top of the food chain. It's a must listen and probably deserves it's own thread!

Bush's unforgivable comments..
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Well, I watched the video a couple of times, and some of the things in it worry me and make me wonder about Ron Paul.

First, I do believe there is a possibility that he may be more anti-semitic than people think he is. That may attract some people, but not me. Why do I say this? The placement of the Star of David throughout the video. Also, one of his descriptors of neocons states that they support Israel. Taken together, this is troubling to me.

Then comes his actual descriptors of neocon views. I've listed some of them, not verbatim, but from what I remember of the video:

They agree with Trotsky in permanent revolution

The ends justify the means

They have no opposition to the welfare state

They believe lying is necessary

They believe society should be run by the elite, and withheld from those who don't have the courage to deal with it

They despise and smear Constitutionalists

They attack your rights.

He also states that modern day neocons have their roots in the far left.

To me, this all sounds like some third-rate blogger spouting radical ideas, with no basis in real life. Some of these "views" are so incorrect as to be laughable; all of them are questionable, imo.


I know this post will receive incoming; that's fine, I don't care. But maybe, just maybe, it is talk like this, and not the MSM that earned RP a seat in obscurity in the primaries.

As for the premise of this thread - he named neocons. So what? Are you telling me that prior to this video, you didn't know who the most prominent neocons are?

reply to post by jsobecky


Why is he an anti semite because he doesnt think we need to fight Isreals battles or get into their business?

Isreal has a damn good military and can fight their own battles they dont need us holding their hands...I think he is right if you would stay out of the business over there a peace deal would of been done along time ago whether it was after a war or not it would be done with...

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Why don't you get it from the man himself why he earmarks money in bills. Your lack of understanding only inflates your intolerance of the truth.

Here's a snippet for you:

As Paul notes in his answer, cutting the number of earmarks does not cut spending. An earmark is a congressional provision that directs federal agencies to spend funds already authorized on specific projects. If the funds aren’t earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayer’s money is spent.

However, of you are truly interested in the truth, then read the entire article from Lew Rockwell here.

Edit: Incidently, I Googled this as well.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by Freenrgy2]

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Why don't you get it from the man himself why he earmarks money in bills.

Actually, I did read what he had to say, and it is the standard politician-born double-speak. And he is engaging in the very same activity he bashes other members of Congress for. He's a hypocrite.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Why don't you get it from the man himself why he earmarks money in bills.

Actually, I did read what he had to say, and it is the standard politician-born double-speak. And he is engaging in the very same activity he bashes other members of Congress for. He's a hypocrite.

Sorry you feel that way. Seems like you've made up your mind. I guess that means that every other standard politician, like Hillary, Obama and McCain are hypocrites as well. Goodness, just who on Earth will you vote for?

Although I respect Mister Paul a great deal, and really admire him having balls to say what he has said in so many times, I do not think anything is going to happen. I do not see American people having a balls to raise on the barricades and stick to the man. No matter what has happened in the past, nothing has changed ... and nothing will change. Things will stay as they are.

American people and rest of the American influenced world will stay the same. They are the sheep and I will see them remain in so. No matter what will happen in the future. Long gone are the days and the spirit that brought us the French Revolution ... not talking about the American Revolution.

If I would be American, then I would vote for Mister Paul. He is the change you guys need.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Sorry you feel that way. Seems like you've made up your mind. I guess that means that every other standard politician, like Hillary, Obama and McCain are hypocrites as well. Goodness, just who on Earth will you vote for?

Goodness, if you'd actually bothered reading the posts in this thread, you'd already know the answer.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Well, I for one have read every post in this forum, but don't feel like going back and finding your previous comments that Ron Paul supporters are all "religious fanatics" or "messiah worshipers" etc...

So instead I'll just state that I am a 29 yr. old San Francisco Physics student, atheist, Libertarian and strong Ron Paul supporter. Why?

Because even if half of what you accuse him of (Political lip service and pandering) is true, and only half of what he says he stands for is true - than that still makes him 400% more honest, less dangerous, and possibly more effective in defending America's constitution and saving American lives than any other presidential option since I've been alive.

I'm not one to jump on bandwagons or believe in fairy tales. I'm not one to support others to positions of power without being informed and researching stances, voting records, and ideals.

As someone else has mentioned - I don't agree with all of Paul's ideals either. I happen to be gay and pro-choice - but the core constitutional, financial, and foreign policy issues that Paul bases his political career on firmly outweigh my concerns about ideological disconnects.

So there you have it. A rational, educated, non-religious voter in full support for Ron Paul as the next President of the US.

An aside (not in response to Saviour Complex) - just because someone doesn't support the legal, historical or logical underpinnings for the existence of Israel doesn't make them anti-semitic. I don't care what religion or race a person is - but if some foreigner were to come into my country and take my family's land, home, business and future away from me and force us into "relocation camps" because of some arguable religious context - I'd do everything and anything I could to kill the SOBs. So I support Palestine. Let Israel fight to be an occupier, but don't send them my money to do it.

SaviorComplex:

Get a life, I do have a life...I'm not an idiot supporting Ron Paul. Stop thinking Ron Paul is the messiah, and that when he ties his shoes it's "couragous."

my "get a life" comment was thrown in there because it's apparent that you pounce on ron paul discussions just so you can let us all know how much you dislike him without exercising any reservation of name-calling or insult.

i never hinted that i considered him a messiah. i think you're just so anti-ron paul that you automatically assume all of his supporters are wild-eyed, mouth-breathing, drooling zealots that clap and nod at everything he says.

i actually found nothing profoud in this speech.

Yes, he is a money grubbing asshat. He inserts pork into bills he votes against, because he knows they will pass even with his "no" vote. And then he convinces idiots that he's against pork and wasteful spending. He talks a good game, but he's every bit part of the system.

i think what an above poster said addresses this pretty well. even IF you consider this practice to be hypocritical, he's STILL less sleezy than most of the other guys.

anyway you missed the point of my last post. i wasn't defending ron paul as much as dropping a hint to you to be more civil. so far you're the only one in this thread that seems to be offending anyone. discourse and disagreement are welcome. rants and personal attacks are certainly not.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by an0maly33]

I really have to give it to Ron Paul. He really does stand up and is not afraid to speak his voice. I mean he's sticking his neck out there and the institution would love to chop his head off.

I really have to give it to Ron Paul. He really does stand up and is not afraid to speak his voice. I mean he's sticking his neck out there and the institution would love to chop his head off.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Goodness, if you'd actually bothered reading the posts in this thread, you'd already know the answer.

Thanks for the advice. So, why even post anything regarding any candidate if your vote is going to be "NO"?

It makes your posts less credible than they already are.

But, you and Dr. Paul now have something in common. You both vote "NO".

What's this???

No. He's not. He's a demagogue, nothing more. I cannot help it if you've been blinded and duped by his pretty words. It's such a terrible shame too. On the surface he has such wonderful ideas. I was a former supporter.

Ah, I now see where the attacks are coming from. Would you care to explain what made you a former supporter?


[edit on 15-5-2008 by Freenrgy2]

Originally posted by Solarskye
I'm afraid if I vote for Ron Paul then my vote goes to Hillary or Obama. Is Ron Paul trying to take the vote away from the Republicans? Everything he says is true and it's almost to good to be true. I'm tired of Dems & Rep and want a complete change but like I said." Is Ron Pauls vote gonna get him as President or the Democrats President?

Then you should vote for Ron Paul and rest your conscious. I'll vote for anyone but McCain, simply because he's a liberal that wants to call himself a conservative. Why not just vote democrat?! I'll vote republican ... true republican ... Ron Paul.

reply to post by angst18

Originally posted by angst18
An aside (not in response to Saviour Complex) - just because someone doesn't support the legal, historical or logical underpinnings for the existence of Israel doesn't make them anti-semitic. I don't care what religion or race a person is - but if some foreigner were to come into my country and take my family's land, home, business and future away from me and force us into "relocation camps" because of some arguable religious context - I'd do everything and anything I could to kill the SOBs. So I support Palestine. Let Israel fight to be an occupier, but don't send them my money to do it.

I won't address your assessment of Israel's origins in the current geopolitical arena, but I will say that *I* was the one who questioned RP's bias. I have reasons:

In the video there is a caricature of Uncle Sam entwined, lock-style, in a Star of David. It is held together by a "Master Lock" - nice choice, eh?

Another shot...Condi talking to Netanyahu, with Israeli and American flags in the background.

When RP begins to describe what, in his opinion, are neocon views, there is a Star of David as a backdrop.

View #3 is a knockoff of a recruiting poster of Uncle Sam pointing out at us, and the caption reads

I WANT YOU
TO DIE FOR ISRAEL

There's probably more.

Am I reading too much into this? I don't think so.