Neocons Take Aim at Ron Paul

Quote:

---

Democrat turned neocon, Michael Medved, the son of a defense contractor scientist and former Democrat speech writer turned neocon talk show host, has penned a blog at the “conservative” website Townhall taking Ron Paul to task for his comments on Iran.
Here’s Medved’s post:

Imagine the Republican outrage if a prominent Democrat became an apologist for Iran and its terrorist-backing, America-hating, theocracy, endorsing their drive for nuclear weapons and blaming the United States for strained relations. The GOP must display when one of their own presidential contenders, Ron Paul, takes these irresponsible positions in a televised debate in Iowa. Congressman Paul said Iran represented no danger to the US, he opposed economic sanctions against the Mullahs, and called it “natural that they might want a (nuclear) weapon.” Despite his strong showing in the Iowa straw poll, such statements demonstrate Ron Paul’s total inability to build a coalition to win the presidency. National security issues still matter to most Americans and his pro-Iranian fulminations, like his crackpot condemnation of the successful strike against bin Laden, place him far outside the GOP – and American – mainstream.

Medved has revealed a not so hidden truth about the presidency – candidates have to be unabashed warmongers in order to qualify for the job. This attributes applies to both Republicans and Democrats (since there is basically no difference between them).

Last week, Ron Paul gave his establishment counterparts at the dog and pony show GOP debate a history lesson on Iran and – as Medved’s screed reveals – this outraged the neocons.

Ron Paul, of course, is not “pro-Iranian,” as Medved ludicrously states. He believes that the United States should mind its own business and not bomb other nations back to the Stone Age or engage in Stalin or Mao level mass murder, as both Clinton and Bush did in Iraq (Clinton by imposing sanctions, Bush by outright invasion and slaughter).

In his farewell speech, George Washington advised non-interference in the affairs of other nations, but this doctrine has since been lost. For Medved and the neocons, the philosophy of the founders is “crackpot” and “far outside the GOP – and American – mainstream.” In Medved’s world, Americans are blood-thirsty psychopaths unable to rest until they bomb every small defenseless nation on the planet, especially if they are ruled by Arab (Gaddafi, al-Assad) or Muslim (Ahmadinejad, the Iranian mullahs) rulers.

Ron Paul finished at the top of the Iowa straw poll because millions of Americans are sick and tired of neocons like Medved running the foreign policy of the United States.

It’s true Ron Paul is “far outside the GOP,” but not the American mainstream, as the former Democrat claims. Both parties are pro-mass murder parties because the ruling elite is addicted to the psychosis on bunker-busters, depleted uranium, and hellfire drones.
Hopefully, on the day after Ron Paul wins the election, Michael Medved will go back to writing movie reviews for British television shows.

---

Wake Up Parker!

Ron Paul, crazy as he is, has actually grown on me. The main reason is because due to his lack of tact, I don't think he'd turn around and betray his campaign promises as willingly as many others have.

I find it funny Rick Santorum of all people is criticizing a country for "trampling the rights of gays"

Not often that you see truth and common sense in political debate.

Bottom line, he is exactly what we need right now. We need to end the world-police bullshit agenda. We need to scale back the Fed govt. We need to question the Fed's misappropriation of the currency.

Nice to see your kickin', Snake. :toast Here is a lil somethin for you homie.



I gots dem youtubes all day. :king

RP did own Santorum on Iran :lol

I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

Nice to see your kickin', Snake. :toast Here is a lil somethin for you homie.



I gots dem youtubes all day. :king

---

Eh, I liked Wicked better.

I actually like Ron Paul and agree with him on many things but you gung ho Paul supporters need to wake up and smell reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoK

I find it funny Rick Santorum of all people is criticizing a country for "trampling the rights of gays"

---

That blew my mind. These people will say anything to get elected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Ron Paul, crazy as he is, has actually grown on me. The main reason is because due to his lack of tact, I don't think he'd turn around and betray his campaign promises as willingly as many others have.

---

I have always liked Paul. I will say again, my only concern is I think he is too lax with the way he would use the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I have always liked Paul. I will say again, my only concern is I think he is too lax with the way he would use the military.

---

I'd rather they be more lax with the military than fuck up our retirement. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Eh, I liked Wicked better.

I actually like Ron Paul and agree with him on many things but you gung ho Paul supporters need to wake up and smell reality.

---

If reality is presenting a choice between losing my pension and selling my kids down the river, Ill choose unelectable Ron Paul every time. :toast

MIC/neo-cons like to start bogus wars for oil, and keep those wars going for decades, with the MIC sucking $Ts from taxpayers, and veteran injuries sucking $Ts out of the taxpayers for decades.

So neo-cons naturally abhor Ron Paul's anti-war stance, which is one of the couple Paul stances I agree with. I thoroughly disagree with his policy of father Ayn Rand Paul. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I have always liked Paul. I will say again, my only concern is I think he is too lax with the way he would use the military.

---

Funny your not concerned about the way the military is being used now...being used to bankrupt our great nation, murder innocents abroad, line the pockets of the corrupt, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

If reality is presenting a choice between losing my pension and selling my kids down the river, Ill choose unelectable Ron Paul every time. :toast

---

Your kids were sold down the river long ago...there are no take-backs. Wake up!

You could be right. I may be crazy.

Gotta vote your conscience though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

Funny your not concerned about the way the military is being used now...being used to bankrupt our great nation, murder innocents abroad, line the pockets of the corrupt, etc.

---

It's not our military spending that's bankrupting us. It's the uncontrolled social spending and uncontrolled exportation of blue collar jobs. As for murdering innocent civilians, not as reported, but sure, some innocent casualties always happen in war.

Lining the pockets of the corrupt?

Is that why we are helping in Libya?

Why do the tinfoil hat crowd love Ron Paul?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Why do the tinfoil hat crowd love Ron Paul?

---

Lack of a better option I guess.


I like Paul, but I don't think people like Alex Jones and his supporters are doing Paul any favors by associating themselves with him.

Darrin....

Am I now a tin foil hat wearer?

I like Ron Paul's thoughts on foreign policy but domestically not even close. That being said, if Ron Paul got the nomination - which he has absolutely no shot in hell at - I'd vote for him over Obama based on foreign policy since Obama can't get shit done at home anyway.

Obama is doing exactly what he is told.... "Dont touch the controls, things are just peachy."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Darrin....

Am I now a tin foil hat wearer?

---

No, I wouldn't say that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I like Ron Paul's thoughts on foreign policy but domestically not even close. That being said, if Ron Paul got the nomination - which he has absolutely no shot in hell at - I'd vote for him over Obama based on foreign policy since Obama can't get shit done at home anyway.

---

And Ron Paul would do a few things at home better than Obama anyway. I think if Paul were president the out of control corporate subsidization in this country would come to an end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoK

And Ron Paul would do a few things at home better than Obama anyway. I think if Paul were president the out of control corporate subsidization in this country would come to an end.

---

see above. :toast

I saw Megan Kelley go after Ron Paul on Fox asking him is Iraq attacked Israel would he retaliate if her were POTUS and he said no.

I still wouldn't vote for Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I saw Megan Kelley go after Ron Paul on Fox asking him is Iraq attacked Israel would he retaliate if her were POTUS and he said no.

---

Fuck Israel a thousand times.

Our subsidized 51st state. Who gives a fuck?

Look, Judeo-Christians, you lost the fucking God war in the Middle East. Muhammad won, get over it and get the fuck out, its been almost 500 years.

Whats that?

No?

Then like lamb to the slaughter....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

Fuck Israel a thousand times.

Our subsidized 51st state. Who gives a fuck?

Look, Judeo-Christians, you lost the fucking God war in the Middle East. Muhammad won, get over it and get the fuck out, its been almost 500 years.

Whats that?

No?

Then like lamb to the slaughter....

---

You know the GOP attacks Obama for his support of Israel so this should kill Paul's chances.

Paul winning wouldn't make a difference. You still need a non-corrupt Congress. Good luck with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Paul winning wouldn't make a difference. You still need a non-corrupt Congress. Good luck with that.

---

I need to start a "Term Limit Party".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

Fuck Israel a thousand times.

Our subsidized 51st state. Who gives a fuck?

Look, Judeo-Christians, you lost the fucking God war in the Middle East. Muhammad won, get over it and get the fuck out, its been almost 500 years.

Whats that?

No?

Then like lamb to the slaughter....

---

I agree, but at the same time the U.N. shouldn't be restricting what military action Israel can take. Let them duke it out on their own and watch Israel dick whip its neighboring countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoK

I agree, but at the same time the U.N. shouldn't be restricting what military action Israel can take. Let them duke it out on their own and watch Israel dick whip its neighboring countries.

---

To a point, I agree.

The problem is, Israel would be dick-whipping them with US weapons systems, funded by the US via international welfare.

We give Israel money to buy our shit. To be more clear, the government (ie taxpayers) give Israel money to buy from "our" military suppliers (ie private corporations).

Its basically a money laundering scheme perpetrated by the (summoning boutons here) MIC and the oh-so-willing-for-a-handout Israelis.

I would cut Israel off from US funding immediately but keep the UN pressure on them for a few years. Then let the dog off the leash once its well known that we arent funding them anymore and havent been for awhile. Still the same guns, but perception is reality.

The other concern is that Israel would probably level the entire area. I'm not sure they would even bother with conventional warfare. Just drop the nukes and cleanse. And I think we can for the most part agree that's not really a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I have always liked Paul. I will say again, my only concern is I think he is too lax with the way he would use the military.

---

I think he'd use it every time it is (in his view) constitutionally warranted to do so.

ie. When Congress declares war.

You're a constructionist, aren't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It's not our military spending that's bankrupting us. It's the uncontrolled social spending and uncontrolled exportation of blue collar jobs. As for murdering innocent civilians, not as reported, but sure, some innocent casualties always happen in war.

Lining the pockets of the corrupt?

Is that why we are helping in Libya?

---

It's not nearly black and white either...military spending is a big part of the debt and there's nothing to indicate that will be decreased as significantly as it should. There's no reason to spend as much money on our military that all other countries in the entire world combined spend. I think it's safe to say Americans are going to be safe at home if we completely pull out of the M.E. and decrease military spending in general. There is no reason to have enough nukes to torch the whole surface area of Earth 100 times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The other concern is that Israel would probably level the entire area. I'm not sure they would even bother with conventional warfare. Just drop the nukes and cleanse. And I think we can for the most part agree that's not really a solution.

---

No, it isnt. Ive never encountered an actual Israeli, Ive never been to Israel, I do not know much about their politics or their intentions.

But I just cant think they would go straight to nukes.

If they did, if anyone did, because of the global impact nuclear weapons have what with the winds sprinkling radiation on San Francisco from Japan, I'd war-dec and curb stomp them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

---

crofl at the very end right after Paul speaks and the audience cheers...


Reporter: ..(awkward pause)..When we come back ...(awkward pause)...we'll try to get a hold of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

No, it isnt. Ive never encountered an actual Israeli, Ive never been to Israel, I do not know much about their politics or their intentions.

But I just cant think they would go straight to nukes.

If they did, if anyone did, because of the global impact nuclear weapons have what with the winds sprinkling radiation on San Francisco from Japan, I'd war-dec and curb stomp them.

---

The only reason Israel doesn't do as they please militarily is, as DoK said, politics. You remove that barrier and IMO, there's no reason to limit the intervention. But perhaps I'm just misguided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

I think he'd use it every time it is (in his view) constitutionally warranted to do so.

ie. When Congress declares war.

You're a constructionist, aren't you?

---

Boom...blew WC's bullshit right up now didnt ya.

https://gab.com/system/media_attachm...80c880d4b1.png