AC...of “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" fame is yet another neocon who is undergoing a full blown transition into RonPaulism.

True, this article reeks of her typical partisan bullshit, but the underlying theme is...this is Obama's war...and that conservatives should not be so flippant in supporting endless wars with no end game in sight.

Really Ann? And when did you finally see the light? Have you been reading my posts here on OC over the past year? LOL.

One cannot be a neocon and be for small government. They mix as well as oil and water. In the meantime...more radical right wingers like "vinegar and water" Ann are starting to see the light.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=176033

Personally, I can't stand her.

However, I will say this concerning war: If we fought the way wars should be fought, we'd be out sooner, with a whole host less of casualties on our side.

War is hell and only the dead have seen the end of it.

War, while a necessary good, should be an extreme last resort.

You're quoting Coulter because she's a great authority on...exactly what?

Oh that's right, she's basically a media whore is looking to make a buck by being as controversial as possible.

Give it up, this thread is pointless.

Writerbuckeye;421756 wrote:You're quoting Coulter because she's a great authority on...exactly what?

Oh that's right, she's basically a media whore is looking to make a buck by being as controversial as possible.

Give it up, this thread is pointless.

DING!

Just love NeoCon food fights in the old ,tired, worthless GOP.

Writerbuckeye;421756 wrote:You're quoting Coulter because she's a great authority on...exactly what?

I quoted her on what she thought the US should do post 9-11. I could have used other quotes from her that were even more vile and disgusting. But I will digress.

Oh that's right, she's basically a media whore is looking to make a buck by being as controversial as possible.

Media whore? She has been the walking/talking flesh blood of neoconservative ideology for a decade now. Of course, just like her fellow neocons, she never once donned the uniform of the US.

Give it up, this thread is pointless.

Give what up exactly? All I did was show an article written by an author that has championed the battle cry of nation building. that all Muslims are slime, there exists only the evil or good people (no gray area whatsoever), that only military might solves global issues, that US world hegemony rules and trumpets all.

And here this neocon deluxe becomes a "turncoat" to the cause, and pulls a 180. And all you and Believer can say is..."worthless thread"?"

No the thread is not worthless at all. The neocons are deserting their love of war..one by one. David Frum anyone? George Will anyone?

Let me say again...the point of the thread is........ that no way can one cite "smaller government".... without logically concluding simultaneously that these fuggin endless wars are a waste of time, money, and blood. Even the neocons are waking up...one war party member at a time.

Footwedge they are pretty much doing what they always do. Dismiss any thread dealing with the hypocrisy of the Republican party.

Or we are not giving her the pleasure of being the mouthpiece for a group of people, one of whom is me!

I would liken it to someone on the left that continually spouts off at the mouth to, in turn, put themselves in the center of the ordeal, as opposed to actually solving the problem.

I have Slander. Got about 10 pages into it before I said, "This is a looney women." Perhaps her and Mel Gibson should link up!

Writerbuckeye;421756 wrote:You're quoting Liz Cheney because she's a great authority on...exactly what?

Oh that's right, she's basically a media whore is looking to make a buck by being as controversial as possible.

Give it up, this thread is pointless.

Notice how this is interchangable

Coulter although a looney, horsefaced, nutjob is occasionally entertaining. I do not know what the deal with Liz Cheney is. Somehow she turned into a conservative spokesperson with little to no credibility, other than her daddy was a VEEP.

Footwedge;421997 wrote:Media whore? She has been the walking/talking flesh blood of neoconservative ideology for a decade now. Of course, just like her fellow neocons, she never once donned the uniform of the US.

I find this little tool that politicians and political hacks (no offense foot) whip out of their toolbag to beat down their fellow Americans opinions in matters of war and peace, reprehensible. It attacks the very founding principles this country was founded on. That of civilian control of the military. If the founders wanted to assure that only those that "donned the uniform" opinions were held worthy in matters of deciding war and peace, they would have placed control of the military solely in the hands of the military.

One only has to take a brief glance through history and they will quickly realize that some of the greatest warmongers in history "donned the military uniform". A quick perusal through history will quickly reveal the utter fallicy of this political tactic. You will find that most of those who "donned the uniform" in service to this country, do not wear it as a badge elevating their opinions above that of their countrymen nor do they want it to be used to diminish the opinions of their countrymen who did not serve in uniform. They find this political tactic disgusting.

Footwedge;421997 wrote:Let me say again...the point of the thread is........ that no way can one cite "smaller government".... without logically concluding simultaneously that these fuggin endless wars are a waste of time, money, and blood. Even the neocons are waking up...one war party member at a time.

I will agree that one cannot be for smaller government and perpetual war. But as the "neocons" are no longer in power, I think you may want to direct your discontent with the current bunch in power. You need not worry about the neocons. They will not see power for a long time. The people who chastised them the last 8yrs are in power now. And their orders are....damn the torpedoes full speed ahead.

rmolin73;422014 wrote:Footwedge they are pretty much doing what they always do. Dismiss any thread dealing with the hypocrisy of the Republican party.

So Coulter is now an official of the Republican Party?

God you people say the dumbest shit, sometimes. She's ONE person expressing her opinion. It's soooo hard to fine one member of a political party who disagrees with the party line, isn't it.

Sheesh, what idiocy.

^^^

Do you really want to get into the idiocy argument writer??

I mean...it was a REPUBLICAN President who waved at Stevie Wonder

On Coulter,she is so far out on the right I don't know how anyone can support her or anything she says

gibby08;422336 wrote:^^^

Do you really want to get into the idiocy argument writer??

I mean...it was a REPUBLICAN President who waved at Stevie Wonder

On Coulter,she is so far out on the right I don't know how anyone can support her or anything she says

haha, I don't think YOU want to be pointing fingers at anybody, Gibby! Especially concerning the debate about stupid republicans or stupid democrats and ANY idiocy inbetween!

ccrunner609;422346 wrote:So Maddow, Olberman, the whole media group at NBC, CNN ect.....are ok?

Olberman...no way

Maddow...not that bad

CNN...you're kidding right. They atleast try to be fair..unlike MSNBC or Fox

gibby08;422336 wrote:^^^

Do you really want to get into the idiocy argument writer??

I mean...it was a REPUBLICAN President who waved at Stevie Wonder

On Coulter,she is so far out on the right I don't know how anyone can support her or anything she says

Totally irrelevant to what was being discussed. What a surprise. Do you want to watch the video of Biden asking the crippled guy to stand up again? Stupidity like that happens all the time with public officials -- and it would likely happen to you if you were in front of cameras and microphones basically 24/7.

As for Coulter being extreme one way or another: AGAIN not relevant to the original discussion. She's ONE PERSON giving an opinion. You libs jump every time some conservative breaks with so-called party dogma one way or another, and try to make an issue of it.

This is America for God's sake...I would hope that differing opinions would be the norm in both parties.

Ann is painfully good at her job...which is to make the lefties froth at the mouth every time her face is on TV or her column appears.

Newsflash: You people have WAY bigger problems than what Ann Coulter is saying this week. Four months to go...better find some focus.

If you like Ann Coulter, you're an idiot.

If you think she's hot, you secretly like men.

That sums it up.

majorspark;422201 wrote:I find this little tool that politicians and political hacks (no offense foot) whip out of their toolbag to beat down their fellow Americans opinions in matters of war and peace, reprehensible. It attacks the very founding principles this country was founded on. That of civilian control of the military. If the founders wanted to assure that only those that "donned the uniform" opinions were held worthy in matters of deciding war and peace, they would have placed control of the military solely in the hands of the military.

Fair enough Sparky. Plenty of people rip on me for stating this. The reason why I do so....I'm a product of the Vietnam War era. Conscription was real....and deadly for many that wanted nothing to do with fighting in southeast Asia...arguing that Ho Chi Minh was no threat to our mainland, nor our way of life. During the conscription period, college people received deferments. Are we such a "capitalist" country that the wealthy can buy themselves out of war? Is that ethical? Is it moral? Well that's the way it was....until the last year of the draft....when the college deferment "loophole" was overturned. Was it just coincidental that Nixon conceded defeat the very first year the "wealthy" were forced to contribute blood? Well, given the history of wars, the wealthy in general have sat on the sidelines in comparison to the peasants. When people die in wars...they are draped in the flag of the country they fought for. Emerson, Lake, and Palmer sardonically sang this with "oooh, what a lucky man, he was" verse in their hit song Lucky Man. Is dying in a war "lucky"? Isn't dead...well...dead?

As such, it irks the hell of of me that the Bill Kristols, Douglas Feiths, Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, Joe Liebermans (party doesn't mean squat), Ted Nugents, Paul Wolfys, Michaeal Ledeens, Dick Cheneys and virtually the entire array of neocons never served a damned day....yet were the frenzy whippers leading and misleading the media, the people, the Congress, and the Pat Tillmans of the world into the wars in Iraq and even the occupation in Afghanistan.

To me...they are not American self proclaimed flag waving patriots, but a collection of jellyfished, chickenhawk pussies...and they get no pass from people that think the way I do.

One only has to take a brief glance through history and they will quickly realize that some of the greatest warmongers in history "donned the military uniform". A quick perusal through history will quickly reveal the utter fallicy of this political tactic. You will find that most of those who "donned the uniform" in service to this country, do not wear it as a badge elevating their opinions above that of their countrymen nor do they want it to be used to diminish the opinions of their countrymen who did not serve in uniform. They find this political tactic disgusting.

It's true that people like Ike and JFK were great warriors for our country, but recent history doesn't support your argument. The biggest mouth war mongers today never served a day in the military. See above list. If you think me stating this as some sort of "tactic", well then you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. Talking about what is right and what is wrong about these unnecessary wars...is not a "tactic". It is a personal belief of mine....shared by a whole bunch of people.

I will agree that one cannot be for smaller government and perpetual war. But as the "neocons" are no longer in power, I think you may want to direct your discontent with the current bunch in power.

You think that because the current president has a D after his name he somehow defaults away from the neoconservative ideology? Really? Other than his warming up diplomatically with certain leaders with differing views, Obama has changed nothing in his own realm of neoconservitism. In my book, he is Bush lite...only in some cases, a lot worse. Has he reduced the military industrial complex? Nope...His military budget is the highest in history. Has he reduced the number of troops in the Middle East? Nope. Just like Bush, he has escalated the number of troops. Under Obama's watch, the US has doubled the number of casualties in 16 short months (Afghanistan) as POTUS. And the progress made? Nothing. It's so bad over there, McCrystal purposely got himself fired to wash his hands of that hell hole. Has he held his promise in Iraq? Nope. His promised time line to reduce troops there has come and gone. Has he closed down Gitmo? Another campaign promise down the shitter. Illegal wire tapping eradicated? Not a chance. Prosecute those that broke Geneva Convention laws on torturing people? Laughable.

You need not worry about the neocons. They will not see power for a long time. The people who chastised them the last 8yrs are in power now. And their orders are....damn the torpedoes full speed ahead.

Again Sparky, a guy as smart as you should set aside your partisan rose colored blinders and come to understand....... that the more things change....the more they stay the same.

2kool4skool;422764 wrote:If you like Ann Coulter, you're an idiot.

If you think she's hot, you secretly like men.

That sums it up.

+1

Which branch of the service did Obama serve in.? Why people (mostly Repub.) are calling out Obama on his war policy is that he ran as the peace President who would end the war in 6 months. He has not only not done this but has in fact expanded the war in both Afgan. and Iraq. He should be held accountable for what he has done and most of the media refuses to do so. As for most of hhis administative policy (far left) Health care, stimulus package, immigration, the large majority of Americans do not agree with him but he still rams his personal agenda down our throats which can't be paid for in our childrens children time. He was seen by most as the antiBush candidate, but if people would have bothered to check what Mr. Obama has voted for and what he has beleived his entire political career, then what has happened in the last year and a half would not be a surprise. He has been consistant with what he has always beleived. He is a far left leader who beleives strongly in wealth redistribution and a world economy. The only surprise for me was that he expanded the war because that goes against everything he beleives in. We all have the opportunity this Nov. and in Nov. 2012 to have our voice heard if we do not agree with the present path. In my opinion all incumbants need to be voted out and continue to voter them out until they govern by the will of the people they represent and not blindly vote along party lines.

Footwedge;422872 wrote:Fair enough Sparky. Plenty of people rip on me for stating this. The reason why I do so....I'm a product of the Vietnam War era. Conscription was real....and deadly for many that wanted nothing to do with fighting in southeast Asia...arguing that Ho Chi Minh was no threat to our mainland, nor our way of life. During the conscription period, college people received deferments.

I do understand the case with the Vietnam war and deferments. I understand the righteous animosity one would feel towards his fellow man that because of some perceived greater value they were deferred from conscription. Not all neocons fall into this category. Most definitely not Ann Coulter.

Footwedge;422872 wrote:Are we such a "capitalist" country that the wealthy can buy themselves out of war? Is that ethical? Is it moral?

Nice try with the dig on capitalism. Forced conscription is a staple in non capitalistic nations. And yes in those nations the "privileged" and those with "connections" in the government get to take the easy route too.

Is it ethical and moral? Absolutely not. During the civil war they made no bones about it. Draftees could pay a commutation fee to exempt them from a certain battle or they could hire a replacement to exempt them from the entire war. Is it no wonder Lincoln had to send in federal troops to put down the riots in the north. During Vietnam they were just a little more subtle.

Footwedge;422872 wrote:It's true that people like Ike and JFK were great warriors for our country, but recent history doesn't support your argument. The biggest mouth war mongers today never served a day in the military. See above list.

The context to that point was world history. Not recent American history.

Footwedge;422872 wrote:If you think me stating this as some sort of "tactic", well then you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. Talking about what is right and what is wrong about these unnecessary wars...is not a "tactic". It is a personal belief of mine....shared by a whole bunch of people.

I primarily was referring to the left in general. If you are directing those comments to those that used some sort of loophole or privileged to avoid the draft, like I said above I can understand that to a degree. In your post you used it against Ann Coultler. Sorry but in that case is smarts of a tactic to diminish the validity of her opinion of something other than fact.

Footwedge;422872 wrote:You think that because the current president has a D after his name he somehow defaults away from the neoconservative ideology?

No I don't but since I can not recall a time that anyone in the media, or for that matter you, has labeled Obama a neocon I have to wonder why. His actions may mirror the evil necons everyone has told us about, but somehow that label does not stick to the current administration. Somehow I have yet to see here on the chatter and in the media criticism of Obama's actions in the Afghan war as neocon, he never served, or he never donned the uniform of the US. Not even from you (at least I can't recall any). You have been critical of Obama but he never seems to get the privilege of the aforementioned criticism you so easily hand out to others. I am not trying to be a prick here but other than in the case of a draft dodger I just can't understand why unless there is some sort of tactic or bias involved.

Footwedge;422872 wrote:Again Sparky, a guy as smart as you should set aside your partisan rose colored blinders and come to understand....... that the more things change....the more they stay the same.

For the most part I agree with the latter portion of your statement. As for the former I am pretty much a mixed bag. No doubt I am a conservative but have some libertarian tendencies. I am against the concentration of power over the masses and prefer balanced power. I believe the federal governments power is limited and the states and the people have the rest. In that sense if California or Rhode Island want a socialist government I have no desire to stop them.

I would say politically I would be considered a constitutionalist. Most of my political beliefs are guided by the original intent of the constitution. I am a registered republican and used to donate my hard earned cash to that party. When they call me now for cash I tell them to pound sand. If I were to find a party out there that is closest to my beliefs it would be the constitution party. But their candidates have about as much chance of getting elected as the trees in my front yard.

In the current system I will hold my nose at times and vote for the candidate that has the best chance of moving this country back to its founding principals. What choice do I have. Either throw my vote in the trash or foment revolution. I have not yet reached that point.

As for you latter statement. I have nothing more than a glimmer of hope that real change can be made in the current climate of government. IMO it will at some point take some form of revolutionary change to radically move our federal government off its current path. Hopefully revolutionary change is made at the ballot box and not with the barrel of a gun.

I may have virtually nothing in common with the democrat party. But I certainly don't have the partisan rose colored glassed on. You have read my posts. Someone that espoused my beliefs would have little chance finding their way onto a national ticket. Not even a republican one.

Here ya go Spark my friend...they are dropping like flies. First Ann...and now Newt. I s'pose Writer Buckeye will claim that Newt is being a media whore too. I just saw a poll that showed that 62% of Americans now think Afghanistan is a losing cause....with a whopping 54% to 41% favoring a one year time withdrawal plan in Afghanistan.

Obama is an absolute stooge regarding the Middle Eastern Wars. What happened to the "televising" of returning KIA? If you wnt my opinion, the next elected president will have Ron Paul foreign policy views. It looks like Newt might be the front runner to win it all in a couple years.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39714.html



As an add on....in response to your post above....Obama fits the mold of a neocon...with 2 exceptions. He does not espouse a religious war between Christians and Jews against the Muslims. And, he has reached out to certain enemies and toned down the Texas cowboy tough talking about "axis of evil" and how he's gonna "smoke em out".

Libertarian websites like antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com are constantly referencing Obama as a neocon in sheep's clothing.