James Kirchick, Ron Paul's Slanderer, Is Funded By Neo Con Think Tanks

[onedomino]

then why do we occupy iraq and bomb the hell out of them and kill their woman and children ?

Why am I not surprised the erots and Joyce are arguing against me in this thread? You know very well, you disingenuous paranoid, that we do not kill civilians deliberately like the enemy does. If there's an anti American remark that can possibly be made, no matter how outrageous, you, Taomon, and your ilk will make it. If we did target indiscriminately, the Iraq war would have been over a long time ago. But why am I responding to someone whose medication obviously has no effect?

 

[eots]

Why am I not surprised the erots and Joyce are arguing against me in this thread? You know very, you disingenuous paranoid, that we do not kill civilians deliberately like the enemy does. If an anti American remark that can possibly be made, no matter how outrageous, you, Taomon, and your ilk will make it. If we did target indiscriminately, the Iraq war would have been over a long time ago. But why am I responding to someone whose medication obviously has no effect?

not a very good answer to if we are at war with a small group of terrorist
why we occupy Iraq .I am very genuine .it is not anti American to question
in fact it is anti American not to . your childish medication nonsense is a sure sign of someone who can not defend their position , the government has murdered its own citizens for far less gain

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6GMNd-xN0[/ame]

U.S. Gov video bio weapon test in New York

 

[no1tovote4]

Ron Paul sidelined himself by not removing the person who wrote those newsletters from his inner circle and denouncing them. Because of this he has allowed himself to be tainted with this, regardless of what is in his heart.

 

[onedomino]

not a very good answer to if we are at war with a small group of terrorist
why we occupy Iraq .I am very genuine .it is not anti American to question
in fact it is anti American not to . your childish medication nonsense is a sure sign of someone who can not defend their position , the government has murdered its own citizens for far less gain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6GMNd-xN0

U.S. Gov video bio weapon test in New York

I did not answer a question about occupying Iraq. Do you see that anywhere in my response? Are you reading the same page as the rest of us? I answered your nasty disingenuous insult regarding the killing of women and children. And if a person as profoundly paranoid and delusional as you is not on medication, then seek help quickly, because you should be. Everything is not a conspiracy, nutcase.

 

[eots]

I did not answer a question about occupying Iraq. Do you see that anywhere in my response? Are you reading the same page as the rest of us? I answered your nasty disingenuous insult regarding the killing of women and children. And if a person as profoundly paranoid and delusional as you is not on medication, then seek help quickly, because you should be. Everything is not a conspiracy, nutcase.

thats correct you did not answer the question you just avoided it ,just as you avoided acknowledging the fact the government has historically murdered its own citizens and simply resort to your rants of medication and paranoia
I find your denial of the facts to be delusional and your fear of the boogy- man islamofacsist to be paranoid and your contempt for questioning or dissent to be wholly Un-Americain

 

[Paulie]

You know very well, you disingenuous paranoid, that we do not kill civilians deliberately like the enemy does.

Listen to this soldier:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VwwMF6biCJU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VwwMF6biCJU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

And then watch these:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0qs71TYwoM&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0qs71TYwoM&feature=related[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNQunB7r96U"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNQunB7r96U[/ame]

 

[Annie]

Listen to this one:

January 14, 2008, 6:00 a.m.

Death Blow to Defeatists
Yesterday we were losing in Iraq, today we are winning.

By Pete Hegseth

“Iraq’s parliament has adopted legislation on the reinstatement of former Baath party supporters to government jobs.” (AP, 1/12/08)

...

And for the past six months — because of General Petraeus’s new counter-insurgency strategy and the courage of 165,000 Americans — Iraqis have seen hope (one might even say “audacious hope”), and they have responded. Bolstered by American commitment, and weary of al-Qaeda brutality, the Iraqi people — Sunni and Shia together in many areas — have started cooperating at the local level.

As a result, violence continues to plummet, with attacks throughout Iraq down 60 percent since June and civilian deaths down 75 percent from a year ago. Iraqis are returning home by the tens of thousands. The incoming flow of foreign fighters have been cut in half. And despite a “surge” of troops, American combat deaths are near all-time monthly lows in Iraq. This is all wonderful news.

All the while, the Defeat-o-cratic leadership in Congress (Reid, Pelosi, & co.) and the Defeat-o-cratic presidential candidates have done everything they can to deny — obvious — progress. I cite two very recent examples from the “clinging to defeat” caucus: First, four days ago Majority Leader Reid said in a statement, “As President Bush continues to cling stubbornly to his flawed strategy, al-Qaeda only grows stronger.” Tell that to al-Qaeda in Iraq, Mr. Majority Leader…those you can still find alive. And while a few defeated fighters may flee elsewhere, they have lost in Iraq. And losing is not an effective recruiting tool for jihadists.

Second, in a recent presidential debate, Senator Obama had the “audacity” to suggest that security improvements in Anbar Province were due to — you’re not going to believe this — the Democratic election gains in 2006! I’ve heard some twisted logic in my days, but that one takes the cake.

Apparently the Sunnis in Anbar were incentivized to rise up by the prospect of abandonment, and reacted accordingly. This sloppy — and overtly political — argument doesn’t pass the Counterinsurgency 101 test. Only when populations are empowered — through more security — can they take on the “occupiers” (read: al-Qaeda). When dealing with al-Qaeda, abandonment means slaughter and subjugation.

So, with their “defeat in Iraq” talking points in shambles (what happened to the “religious civil war with no end in sight” talking point?), this weekend’s news was a deathblow to defeatists. The Iraq parliament passed national de-Baathification legislation, and the New York Times printed it on the front page, which means it must be important, right?

For months the only argument the antiwar crowd could cling to was: “The surge has not brought about the national-level political progress it was intended to induce.” Ergo: We lose, bring ‘em home. While this argument requires a “willing suspension of disbelief” in light of recent improvements in Iraq, it was “technically” true.

No more.

The Iraqi parliament, flaws and all, came together — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd — to craft a law that relaxes restrictions on the right of former-members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party to fill government posts. The law will reinstate thousands of Baathists in government jobs from which they had been dismissed shortly after the war.

In short, less than five years after the fall of a genocidal Sunni dictator — who killed thousands of Shiites and Kurds — a democratically elected Shia government granted de-facto “amnesty” to former Baathist co-conspirators. Kind of makes our domestic illegal-immigration “amnesty” d.ebate look silly, doesn’t it?
...

— Lt. Pete Hegseth, who served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from 2005 to 2006, is executive director of Vets for Freedom.

 

[midcan5]

I have to disagree that these think tanks are neo-conservative, most are conservative, republican, pro business organizations. Many started after Goldwater lost badly to Johnson as people in power with money felt their politics were not being represented properly. Since then they have done an incredible job of distorting/creating history and backing republicans and thinkers who share their view. Ron Paul would offend them as he isn't one of the good old boys, but he is a republican so that makes for great irony.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=7

 

[Annie]

I have to disagree that these think tanks are neo-conservative, most are conservative, republican, pro business organizations. Many started after Goldwater lost badly to Johnson as people in power with money felt their politics were not being represented properly. Since then they have done an incredible job of distorting/creating history and backing republicans and thinkers who share their view. Ron Paul would offend them as he isn't one of the good old boys, but he is a republican so that makes for great irony.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=7

try googling:

libertarian think tank

You'll see why Pauli got all upset with the Cato link. Same with 'Reason Magazine'. They aren't neo-con, they are Libertarian.

 

[eots]

its only temporary measured in increments of months ,only sustained through constant military pressure..and has nothing to do with the fact we have invaded and occupied a sovereign nation

 

[Paulie]

Kath, jill, neg reps mean nothing to me, just so you know.

And Kath, you can deny it all you want, but you've been calling Ron a racist since the first post you made about this. Your main argument is he's guilty because of the company he keeps. Like somehow his supporters define HIM. That's the freaking point you've been trying to make now for like 3 weeks.

If you don't REALLY think he's a racist, which by your posts is impossible to ascertain, I'm sorry, then why do you constantly post about HIM, and the racists that HE'S supposedly tied to? How else would one construe that? You posted a picture of him standing next to Don Black, as if to say "see? He's next to Stormfront's leader, he MUST be racist". That's basically what you said in that post too, in your own words.

Apparently you don't think any presidential candidate should accept support from racists, if your argument is what you say it is about Ron. Just because YOU don't like racism, doesn't mean that in this free country, those racists can't pick a candidate for president that they support...for WHATEVER reason.

I don't think it's been very hard for most people in here to see what your agenda has been, and what your beliefs are. You've pinned RP down as a racist, and nothing you can say to try and wiggle out of that is going to change things.

 

[Annie]

Kath, jill, neg reps mean nothing to me, just so you know.

And Kath, you can deny it all you want, but you've been calling Ron a racist since the first post you made about this. Your main argument is he's guilty because of the company he keeps. Like somehow his supporters define HIM. That's the freaking point you've been trying to make now for like 3 weeks.

If you don't REALLY think he's a racist, which by your posts is impossible to ascertain, I'm sorry, then why do you constantly post about HIM, and the racists that HE'S supposedly tied to? How else would one construe that?

Apparently you don't think any presidential candidate should accept support from racists, if your argument is what you say it is about Ron. Just because YOU don't like racism, doesn't mean that in this free country, those racists can't pick a candidate for president that they support...for WHATEVER reason.

I don't think it's been very hard for most people in here to see what your agenda has been, and what your beliefs are. You've pinned RP down as a racist, and nothing you can say to try and wiggle out of that is going to change things.

no, your inability to read, comprehend, and use objectivity isn't my problem, but yours. It's always been about the congregation of people with nothing in common other than a Libertarian aspect of their problems. RP drew them like moths to his flame. He can say he isn't this or that, but he desperately tried to make them feel there was a wink and a nod. Thus eots and someone unnamed that I normally respect very much, who like you, is still on board. Others I respect, just couldn't stomach anymore after this past week. That you can, may speak more of your character than you realize, since you do not strike me as a hater or even a truther.

BTW, since it's 'impossible' to ascertain that I think he's a racist, why did you call me a liar? That was what the rep was for. Another aside, just like this post, I think I've been mostly polite to you, which has not been returned, especially since The New Republic article came out. For that alone, you deserve any negs that happen your way, IMO.

 

[jillian]

If Barack Obama took money from the Nation of Islam, and personally addressed a group presided over by Louis Farrakhan, would it be reasonable to presume that his policies were such that they would appeal to black racists?

 

[Annie]

If Barack Obama took money from the Nation of Islam, and personally addressed a group presided over by Louis Farrakhan, would it be reasonable to presume that his policies were such that they would appeal to black racists?

Which is why his church mission gives me pause. Not a lot, but some. I could live with him.

 

[Paulie]

If Barack Obama took money from the Nation of Islam, and personally addressed a group presided over by Louis Farrakhan, would it be reasonable to presume that his policies were such that they would appeal to black racists?

I'm not quite sure where you're going with that, but it sure does sound racially offensive if you ask me. Much like Ron shouldn't be construed as pro-white nationalism just because some white nationalists support him, Obama shouldn't be construed as pro-black power just because he addressed Nation of Islam folks.

BTW, since it's 'impossible' to ascertain that I think he's a racist, why did you call me a liar?

I said it's impossible to ascertain that you DON'T think he's racist. Maybe I used a double negative, if I did and it confused you, I'm sorry.

Which is why his church mission gives me pause. Not a lot, but some. I could live with him.

You know, I think that's my biggest problem right now with you and all of this. You seem to condone everyone else in the race that keeps questionable company, or says racially offensive things, except Ron.

 

[eots]

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people


to listen to the MP3 interview.
http://infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_naacp_president_rp_not_racist.htm

I cant help but notice the lack of interest in what the colored boy had to say about the subject

 

[jillian]

Which is why his church mission gives me pause. Not a lot, but some. I could live with him.

I don't know enough about his church mission. But I think he seems like a decent person... a smart person. I don't think he'd do anything to alienate people in that way.

 

[Annie]

I'm not quite sure where you're going with that, but it sure does sound racially offensive if you ask me. Much like Ron shouldn't be construed as pro-white nationalism just because some white nationalists support him, Obama shouldn't be construed as pro-black power just because he addressed Nation of Islam folks.



I said it's impossible to ascertain that you DON'T think he's racist. Maybe I used a double negative, if I did and it confused you, I'm sorry.



You know, I think that's my biggest problem right now with you and all of this. You seem to condone everyone else in the race that keeps questionable company, or says racially offensive things, except Ron.

Pshaw, I don't have to prove a thing to you. You deserve what you got, based on your posts.

 

[Annie]

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people


to listen to the MP3 interview.
http://infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_naacp_president_rp_not_racist.htm

I cant help but notice the lack of interest in what the colored boy had to say about the subject

Maybe, just maybe that 'colored boy' as you said, has a debt owed or a favor pending for his representative to Washington? Just a thought. One you should consider.

 

[jillian]

I'm not quite sure where you're going with that, but it sure does sound racially offensive if you ask me. Much like Ron shouldn't be construed as pro-white nationalism just because some white nationalists support him, Obama shouldn't be construed as pro-black power just because he addressed Nation of Islam folks.



I said it's impossible to ascertain that you DON'T think he's racist. Maybe I used a double negative, if I did and it confused you, I'm sorry.



You know, I think that's my biggest problem right now with you and all of this. You seem to condone everyone else in the race that keeps questionable company, or says racially offensive things, except Ron.

Obama DIDN'T address the Nation of Islam... he's neither a racist nor self-destructive politically. If I confused you, I'm sorry.

I wouldn't vote for someone who addressed Bob Jones University either. Does that help?