Ron Paul: US Should Not Support Israel's Gaza Blockade

[sweetie]

GOOD GOLLY OLLIE FOLLY: "I dispute your stupidity in believing that the Pentagon doesn't know where and the number of our military bases. DUH! Or is anything over the number 10 too big for you to deal with?"



...i pasted a piece by chalmers johnson...he is a fellow who i would bet a bundle knows A LOT more about the sprawling stinking US military octopus than you..you appear a stoooooooooopid fuck who has apparently derived much of his 'knowledge' from ruse limbaugh, hannitwitty, peckerhead beck, blow'reilly, etc. republicrat shit spew shows galore!..

...the rest of you, have a good day!..

 

[sweetie]

DUDWHISTLES: "If you can find anyone who is against Israel without being anti-Semitic please feel free to inform me."



...actually, you apparent big government republican retard, i believe you'll find 'semites' are (PRIMARILY) semitic-speaking people...among whom are native babylonians, ethiopians, ARABS, etc..

...i also believe you'll find MANY of these vicious stinking zionists in iZrael are EUROPEANS, 'westerners,' etc..

...so in reality, you apparent rush limbaugh ignoramus, YOU ARE THE 'ANTI-SEMITE'..AS YOU APPEAR TO HARBOR VICIOUS HATRED AGAINST THE NATIVE PALESTINIAN ARABS..

(!good god, these republicrat cheerleaders are some awful fucking shit-heads, fools, etc..)

btw, i get a hoot out of the stooooooopid fuck republican drug prohibitionist, rabbi...in reality, his stinking 'drug war policies' have raised the price of 'illegal drugs' allowing the major 'narco-suppliers' to reap HUGE PROFIT$.....the real 'narco dealers' love rabbi's stooooooopid fuck republicrat 'drug war!..

...the rest of you, have a good day!..

 

[PixieStix]

Ron Paul believes in non-interventionism, which means that no we would not go to Israel's aid if they were attacked or anything like that.

And thus, Rep Paul is a fool.

why should we have to defend israel?

They are a small country surrounded by an bunch of loons hell bent on destroying them, for no reason other than they are Israelis. The ME is a big place, hamas and other terrorist organization will use the Palestinian people for that cause.

 

[sweetie]

...here are some old number$ for stubbornly stoooooooooooooopid republicrats like cmike to contemplate..i've found new number$ extremely difficult to obtain..have you stoooopid republicrat iZraeli cheerleaders tried to find any new number$?...or will it only be an issue of concern if rush limbaaaaa tells you it is? ..enjoy..

U.S. Aid to Israel

THE STRATEGIC FUNCTIONS OF U.S. AID TO ISRAEL
By Stephen Zunes

Dr. Zunes is an assistant professor in the Department of Politics at the University of San Francisco

Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.

In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years.

Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .1 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries.

AID does not term economic aid to Israel as development assistance, but instead uses the term "economic support funding." Given Israel's relative prosperity, U.S. aid to Israel is becoming increasingly controversial. In 1994, Yossi Beilen, deputy foreign minister of Israel and a Knesset member, told the Women's International Zionist organization, "If our economic situation is better than in many of your countries, how can we go on asking for your charity?"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because Liberty is for me not for thee.
According to the narco-libertarians, unless enemy troops are actually pouring across the border there is no reason to take up arms.
So the US involvement in WW2 was misguided because Germany posed no threat to us.

This is why the narco libertarians will never win an election in this country.

And according to you and the rest of the imperialist neocons it's fine to bomb and invade a country that has done nothing to us.

Great comeback. Not.
Do you deny the narco-libertarian view is that the U.S. should not have gone to war against Germany in WW2?

It wasn't a "comeback," it was a statement of fact. Do you deny that imperialist neocons supported war against Iraq, despite Iraq having done nothing to the U.S.?

Libertarians are divided as to whether we should have gotten involved in World War 2. Many see it as the only "good" war we were ever a part of, and the many of us believe we provoked Japan into attacking us and that FDR had every intention of entering WW2 but that he needed a reason to sell to the American people who opposed our entry into the war.

 

[The Rabbi]

And according to you and the rest of the imperialist neocons it's fine to bomb and invade a country that has done nothing to us.

Great comeback. Not.
Do you deny the narco-libertarian view is that the U.S. should not have gone to war against Germany in WW2?

It wasn't a "comeback," it was a statement of fact. Do you deny that imperialist neocons supported war against Iraq, despite Iraq having done nothing to the U.S.?

Libertarians are divided as to whether we should have gotten involved in World War 2. Many see it as the only "good" war we were ever a part of, and the many of us believe we provoked Japan into attacking us and that FDR had every intention of entering WW2 but that he needed a reason to sell to the American people who opposed our entry into the war.

I deny that any statement about "neo con imperialists" is relevant in a discussion of narco-libertarians.
How anyone could be divided over our involvement in WW2 is telling about the movement itself.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Great comeback. Not.
Do you deny the narco-libertarian view is that the U.S. should not have gone to war against Germany in WW2?

It wasn't a "comeback," it was a statement of fact. Do you deny that imperialist neocons supported war against Iraq, despite Iraq having done nothing to the U.S.?

Libertarians are divided as to whether we should have gotten involved in World War 2. Many see it as the only "good" war we were ever a part of, and the many of us believe we provoked Japan into attacking us and that FDR had every intention of entering WW2 but that he needed a reason to sell to the American people who opposed our entry into the war.

I deny that any statement about "neo con imperialists" is relevant in a discussion of narco-libertarians.
How anyone could be divided over our involvement in WW2 is telling about the movement itself.

But this is not a discussion of libertarians or libertarianism and certainly not a discussion about WW2, and yet you had no problem bringing those irrelevant, to this thread, issues up in an attempt to pointlessly attack libertarians once again.

 

[CMike]

DUDWHISTLES: "If you can find anyone who is against Israel without being anti-Semitic please feel free to inform

...so in reality, you apparent rush limbaugh ignoramus, YOU ARE THE 'ANTI-SEMITE'..AS YOU APPEAR TO HARBOR VICIOUS HATRED AGAINST THE NATIVE PALESTINIAN ARABS..

(!good god, these republicrat cheerleaders are some awful fucking shit-head
btw, i get a hoot out of the stooooooopid fuck republican drug prohibitionist, rabbi...in reality, his stinking 'drug war policies' have raised the price of 'illegal drugs' allowing the major 'narco-suppliers' to reap HUGE PROFIT$.....the real 'narco dealers' love rabbi's stooooooopid fuck republicrat 'drug war!..

...the rest of you, have a good day!..

 

[The Rabbi]

It wasn't a "comeback," it was a statement of fact. Do you deny that imperialist neocons supported war against Iraq, despite Iraq having done nothing to the U.S.?

Libertarians are divided as to whether we should have gotten involved in World War 2. Many see it as the only "good" war we were ever a part of, and the many of us believe we provoked Japan into attacking us and that FDR had every intention of entering WW2 but that he needed a reason to sell to the American people who opposed our entry into the war.

I deny that any statement about "neo con imperialists" is relevant in a discussion of narco-libertarians.
How anyone could be divided over our involvement in WW2 is telling about the movement itself.

But this is not a discussion of libertarians or libertarianism and certainly not a discussion about WW2, and yet you had no problem bringing those irrelevant, to this thread, issues up in an attempt to pointlessly attack libertarians once again.

You're joking, right?
It is a discussion of Ron Paul and his view of U.S. policy, a view that reflects narco-libertarian ideals. So any discussion of those ideals is relevant. A discussion of neo-cons (and we know who they are) is irrelevant.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I deny that any statement about "neo con imperialists" is relevant in a discussion of narco-libertarians.
How anyone could be divided over our involvement in WW2 is telling about the movement itself.

But this is not a discussion of libertarians or libertarianism and certainly not a discussion about WW2, and yet you had no problem bringing those irrelevant, to this thread, issues up in an attempt to pointlessly attack libertarians once again.

You're joking, right?
It is a discussion of Ron Paul and his view of U.S. policy, a view that reflects narco-libertarian ideals. So any discussion of those ideals is relevant. A discussion of neo-cons (and we know who they are) is irrelevant.

If twisting a thread about Israel into a discussion of libertarianism because a libertarian has an opinion on Israel is relevant, then it's certainly relevant to discuss imperialist neoconservatism as well since there's enough of you offering an opinion in this thread.

 

[The Rabbi]

But this is not a discussion of libertarians or libertarianism and certainly not a discussion about WW2, and yet you had no problem bringing those irrelevant, to this thread, issues up in an attempt to pointlessly attack libertarians once again.

You're joking, right?
It is a discussion of Ron Paul and his view of U.S. policy, a view that reflects narco-libertarian ideals. So any discussion of those ideals is relevant. A discussion of neo-cons (and we know who they are) is irrelevant.

If twisting a thread about Israel into a discussion of libertarianism because a libertarian has an opinion on Israel is relevant, then it's certainly relevant to discuss imperialist neoconservatism as well since there's enough of you offering an opinion in this thread.

No, really it isn't relevant at all.
Is lying part of the narco-libertarian creed? Like Islam or something? So saying "9/11 was an inside job" even though everyone knows it was not, is OK because it advances the narco libertarian agenda?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're joking, right?
It is a discussion of Ron Paul and his view of U.S. policy, a view that reflects narco-libertarian ideals. So any discussion of those ideals is relevant. A discussion of neo-cons (and we know who they are) is irrelevant.

If twisting a thread about Israel into a discussion of libertarianism because a libertarian has an opinion on Israel is relevant, then it's certainly relevant to discuss imperialist neoconservatism as well since there's enough of you offering an opinion in this thread.

No, really it isn't relevant at all.
Is lying part of the narco-libertarian creed? Like Islam or something? So saying "9/11 was an inside job" even though everyone knows it was not, is OK because it advances the narco libertarian agenda?

Me bringing up neoconservatism is the same as you bringing up libertarianism, if one is irrelevant then so is the other. You can't twist things in a way you like, and then get upset when somebody does the same for something you don't want to discuss. As if bringing up a libertarian's position on WW2 is somehow more relevant in a thread discussing ISRAEL then a neoconservative's position on Iraq.

So all libertarians and Muslims are liars. How tolerant of other ideologies and religions you are. And bringing up conspiracy theories is a strawman and certainly not relevant to this discussion.

 

[The Rabbi]

If twisting a thread about Israel into a discussion of libertarianism because a libertarian has an opinion on Israel is relevant, then it's certainly relevant to discuss imperialist neoconservatism as well since there's enough of you offering an opinion in this thread.

No, really it isn't relevant at all.
Is lying part of the narco-libertarian creed? Like Islam or something? So saying "9/11 was an inside job" even though everyone knows it was not, is OK because it advances the narco libertarian agenda?

Me bringing up neoconservatism is the same as you bringing up libertarianism, if one is irrelevant then so is the other. You can't twist things in a way you like, and then get upset when somebody does the same for something you don't want to discuss. As if bringing up a libertarian's position on WW2 is somehow more relevant in a thread discussing ISRAEL then a neoconservative's position on Iraq.

So all libertarians and Muslims are liars. How tolerant of other ideologies and religions you are. And bringing up conspiracy theories is a strawman and certainly not relevant to this discussion.

No, it isn't the same at all. The thread deals with Paul's reaction to US Policy, which is informed by his narco libertarian views. Thus narco libertarian views on foreign policy in general are fair game.
If you want to start a thread on neo con (and we know who they are!) views on the middle east, go right ahead.
But don't pretend that deflecting from uncomfortable facts about narco-libertarianism is in any way consistent with this thread.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, really it isn't relevant at all.
Is lying part of the narco-libertarian creed? Like Islam or something? So saying "9/11 was an inside job" even though everyone knows it was not, is OK because it advances the narco libertarian agenda?

Me bringing up neoconservatism is the same as you bringing up libertarianism, if one is irrelevant then so is the other. You can't twist things in a way you like, and then get upset when somebody does the same for something you don't want to discuss. As if bringing up a libertarian's position on WW2 is somehow more relevant in a thread discussing ISRAEL then a neoconservative's position on Iraq.

So all libertarians and Muslims are liars. How tolerant of other ideologies and religions you are. And bringing up conspiracy theories is a strawman and certainly not relevant to this discussion.

No, it isn't the same at all. The thread deals with Paul's reaction to US Policy, which is informed by his narco libertarian views. Thus narco libertarian views on foreign policy in general are fair game.
If you want to start a thread on neo con (and we know who they are!) views on the middle east, go right ahead.
But don't pretend that deflecting from uncomfortable facts about narco-libertarianism is in any way consistent with this thread.

You're the only one deflecting in this thread. I've answered and corrected any claims made about libertarianism in this thread, and have done so comfortably. I have no problem expounding any views that I hold, or explaining whether all libertarians agree on a given issue or not. You, however, would rather deflect from discussing your own imperialist views by saying they're not relevant to this thread. Have you not given your opinion on U.S. policy towards Israel in this thread the same as Ron Paul has? Therefore your imperialist views are as relevant to this thread as Ron Paul's libertarian views.

 

[The Rabbi]

Me bringing up neoconservatism is the same as you bringing up libertarianism, if one is irrelevant then so is the other. You can't twist things in a way you like, and then get upset when somebody does the same for something you don't want to discuss. As if bringing up a libertarian's position on WW2 is somehow more relevant in a thread discussing ISRAEL then a neoconservative's position on Iraq.

So all libertarians and Muslims are liars. How tolerant of other ideologies and religions you are. And bringing up conspiracy theories is a strawman and certainly not relevant to this discussion.

No, it isn't the same at all. The thread deals with Paul's reaction to US Policy, which is informed by his narco libertarian views. Thus narco libertarian views on foreign policy in general are fair game.
If you want to start a thread on neo con (and we know who they are!) views on the middle east, go right ahead.
But don't pretend that deflecting from uncomfortable facts about narco-libertarianism is in any way consistent with this thread.

You're the only one deflecting in this thread. I've answered and corrected any claims made about libertarianism in this thread, and have done so comfortably. I have no problem expounding any views that I hold, or explaining whether all libertarians agree on a given issue or not. You, however, would rather deflect from discussing your own imperialist views by saying they're not relevant to this thread. Have you not given your opinion on U.S. policy towards Israel in this thread the same as Ron Paul has? Therefore your imperialist views are as relevant to this thread as Ron Paul's libertarian views.

What a laugh!
Look at your post 77 and tell me how that wasn't deflecting.
The thread is not about my views of the blocade, but Ron Paul's. Stick to that.

 

[jillian]

You're the only one deflecting in this thread. I've answered and corrected any claims made about libertarianism in this thread, and have done so comfortably. I have no problem expounding any views that I hold, or explaining whether all libertarians agree on a given issue or not. You, however, would rather deflect from discussing your own imperialist views by saying they're not relevant to this thread. Have you not given your opinion on U.S. policy towards Israel in this thread the same as Ron Paul has? Therefore your imperialist views are as relevant to this thread as Ron Paul's libertarian views.

i'm afraid i've never seen a 'libertarian' of today's ilk, (and i don't mean goldwater conservatives) acknowledge there is ever a war worth fighting or a foreign intervention of moment. there is also, clearly to those of us to whom the issue actually matters, a clear hatred of israel. it's just couched in terms like 'we shouldn't give money'...

yet, i've never seen a single one of you post thread after thread talking about the money we give to the pals, to saudi arabia or to any other country... it's ALWAYS israel that's the focus.

you can try to disprove that all you want...

and now you'll say 'i don't think we should intervene at all'

which means the only one we say drop dead to is israel.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's all the fault of the "neo-cons" which is code for "Jews."

It would not surprise me if anti-semitism was latent in the narco-libertarian movement.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, it isn't the same at all. The thread deals with Paul's reaction to US Policy, which is informed by his narco libertarian views. Thus narco libertarian views on foreign policy in general are fair game.
If you want to start a thread on neo con (and we know who they are!) views on the middle east, go right ahead.
But don't pretend that deflecting from uncomfortable facts about narco-libertarianism is in any way consistent with this thread.

You're the only one deflecting in this thread. I've answered and corrected any claims made about libertarianism in this thread, and have done so comfortably. I have no problem expounding any views that I hold, or explaining whether all libertarians agree on a given issue or not. You, however, would rather deflect from discussing your own imperialist views by saying they're not relevant to this thread. Have you not given your opinion on U.S. policy towards Israel in this thread the same as Ron Paul has? Therefore your imperialist views are as relevant to this thread as Ron Paul's libertarian views.

What a laugh!
Look at your post 77 and tell me how that wasn't deflecting.
The thread is not about my views of the blocade, but Ron Paul's. Stick to that.

Read post 85 where I answer your claim regarding the position of libertarianism and U.S. involvement in WW2. Post 77 was me answering your irrelevant post with an irrelevant post of my own. Tit-for-tat, if you will. However, you have repeatedly and consistently deflected away from discussing your own imperialist views.

The moment you gave your views in this thread they became open for discussion, just as Ron Paul's are.

 

[nraforlife]

................

yet, i've never seen a single one of you post thread after thread talking about the money we give to the pals, to saudi arabia or to any other country... it's ALWAYS israel that's the focus.

....................................

no foreign State should receive USA taxpayer funds.

BTW jillian I bet yer a jew ain't ya.

 

[jillian]

................

yet, i've never seen a single one of you post thread after thread talking about the money we give to the pals, to saudi arabia or to any other country... it's ALWAYS israel that's the focus.

....................................

no foreign State should receive USA taxpayer funds.

BTW jillian I bet yer a jew ain't ya.

you know, it's funny... there are certain people who embarrass the right and disgust the left.

congrats. you're one of the rare ones.

and what's it to ya, loser?