Ron Paul and the neoliberal reeducation campaign

Maple

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
4,674
Reaction score
568
Points
48
The American Spectator : Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign

For any of you Ron Paul supporters, an education for you. Take special note of the harrassment of Sean Hannity by some of Ron Paul's radical supporters.Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons:

When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives.

This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul's views are, self-described, "non-interventionist."

The fact that he has been allowed to get away with pretending to conservatism on this score is merely reflective of journalists who, for whatever reason, are simply unfamiliar with American history. Ironically, it is precisely because the Paul campaign has not been thoroughly covered that no one pays attention to the historical paternity of what the candidate is saying.

There is no great sin in Paul's non-interventionist stance (or "isolationist" stance as his critics would have it). There have been American politicians aplenty throughout American history, particularly in the 20th century, who believed precisely as Paul and his enthusiasts do right now. (Paul touts his admiration for the Founding Fathers, but even that is very selective. James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame was a considerable interventionist, Washington as a general invaded Canada, and Alexander Hamilton gave rise to Paul's idea of evil spawn -- the Federal Reserve. Interventionists of all types have been with us right from the start.)
 
Last edited:
OP
M

Maple

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
4,674
Reaction score
568
Points
48
The American Spectator : Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign

For any of you Ron Paul supporters, an education for you. Take special note of the harrassment of Sean Hannity by some of Ron Paul's radical supporters.Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons:

When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives.

This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul's views are, self-described, "non-interventionist."

The fact that he has been allowed to get away with pretending to conservatism on this score is merely reflective of journalists who, for whatever reason, are simply unfamiliar with American history. Ironically, it is precisely because the Paul campaign has not been thoroughly covered that no one pays attention to the historical paternity of what the candidate is saying.

There is no great sin in Paul's non-interventionist stance (or "isolationist" stance as his critics would have it). There have been American politicians aplenty throughout American history, particularly in the 20th century, who believed precisely as Paul and his enthusiasts do right now. (Paul touts his admiration for the Founding Fathers, but even that is very selective. James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame was a considerable interventionist, Washington as a general invaded Canada, and Alexander Hamilton gave rise to Paul's idea of evil spawn -- the Federal Reserve. Interventionists of all types have been with us right from the start.)
And more from this article- now here's my question for you Ron Paul fans are you still a Ron Paul fan after reading this?

Here are the views of various prominent Paul supporters about some conservatives you may be familiar with.

• Ronald Reagan: Here the late Paulist Murray Rothbard labels the conservative presidential icon as a "cretin," Reagan's two-terms in office described as "eight dreary, miserable, mind-numbing years."

• William F. Buckley, Jr.: The man who became the very gold standard of the American conservative movement is viewed as a "defacto totalitarian" here, again in another Rothbard selection from ex-Paul chief of staff Lew Rockwell's site, a site for which Paul himself has written.

• Antonin Scalia: Justice Scalia is not only no conservative in Paulville, he is -- sitting down? -- "a reliable supporter of presidential dictatorship, the police state, the torture-warfare state, and the empire." This gem was penned by ex-Paul chief of staff Rockwell himself.

• Sarah Palin: That's right. This business of Sarah Palin being a conservative, according to Rockwell, is just a ruse. In fact, Governor Palin is really a "double agent" for the "regime." From the same article as above. Oh yes… don't forget Governor Palin is quite possibly a "puppet" (as seen here by Jack Hunter, now the Paul campaign's "official blogger"). Oh, and Mr. Mulshine, the Paulist columnist? To him Palin is "just another whiny liberal claiming victimization."

• Edwin Meese: The former Reagan Attorney General beloved of conservative activists is described in Paulville as the "mouthpiece" for fascists

• The Koch Brothers: The fascists for whom Ed Meese is the fascist mouthpiece? That would be the libertarian Koch brothers who, apparently, aren't libertarian at all in the eyes of Paulville. In Paulville, libertarian conservatives David and Charles Koch are said to be supporters of a "fascist regime." Same post as above. It is surely no coincidence that the Koch brothers were targeted earlier this year by the far-left hacking group Anonymous. As seen in this Politico story. Once again, the right/left neoliberal profile surfaces.

• Clarence Thomas: Dubbed part of a fascist "tag team" by Paul supporters. Why? Because Justice Thomas, along with fellow Justice Scalia, spoke at that gathering sponsored by those fascist Koch brothers. Where Ed Meese was covering as the mouthpiece for the fascists.

• Rush Limbaugh: Rush? Rush Limbaugh? That Rush Limbaugh isn't a conservative? Nope. Not in Paulville. In the eyes of Paulvillians the Rush Limbaugh so many millions of conservatives thought they knew and loved turns out to be a man with "Stalinist tendencies" -- aka a commie. Read all about it here.

• Sean Hannity: So OK, understanding that Sarah Palin is a double agent and a puppet and Rush is pulsing with Stalinist tendencies, surely Sean Hannity -- conservative talk show and TV host extraordinaire, author of the bestselling Conservative Victory -- surely Sean is a real conservative? Naaaaaaaaah. Not in Paulville. There our friend Sean is -- no kidding -- "evil" That's right. You read that right. Hannity is, quite seriously in the minds (?) of Paulville's neolibs, part of the "pantheon of warmongers that make up the true axis of evil." Once that is understood, this video of Ron Paul supporters literally chasing Hannity through the streets of New Hampshire in 2008 can be seen for the leftist intimidation it was intended to be. The fact that the video of Paul supporters chasing Hannity so closely matches this video of Wisconsin leftists chasing and trapping a Wisconsin Republican legislator is a chilling reminder of the commonality of the protestors involved.

• Mark Levin: Come on. So he wrote the bestselling conservative manifesto Liberty and Tyranny.

So Michele Bachmann has called Levin an inspiration to the Tea Party. So Tea Party members were waving the book in the air at their rallies. So what? Levin's no conservative in Paulville. Levin's… you know… wink wink… one of them.

• The Cato Institute: The Cato Institute? The premiere libertarian think tank in America under attack in Paulville? No way! Yup. Here.

There's more -- much more than we have room for here. The Ron Paul campaign's "official blogger" Jack Hunter hates Lincoln but can't find his tongue with Confederate president Jefferson Davis suspending habeas corpus or 100% of the civil liberties of blacks -- aka slavery. Then there's Thomas J. DiLorenzo, whose arguments are recommended reading by Ron Paul. Here's Mr. DiLorenzo on Amazon.
 
Last edited:
OP
M

Maple

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
4,674
Reaction score
568
Points
48

Charles_Main

AR15 Owner
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
16,692
Reaction score
2,248
Points
88
Location
Michigan, USA
Paul has some good ideas, but his plans for our National Defense. His "none interventionism" is a deal breaker for me.

Sorry, Call me what ever you like. I like living in the most powerful nation on earth. I want us to project our power elsewhere so we don't have to use it here. none interventionism is just another way to say Isolationism. We have tried that one before.

I am reminded of the old saying. When the cat's away the mice will play. What people like Paul do not understand is we are not the only power in the world. If we are not out there projecting our power, and Intervening someone else will be.
 
Last edited:

presence06

Rookie
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
32
Reaction score
5
Points
1
The American Spectator : Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign

For any of you Ron Paul supporters, an education for you. Take special note of the harrassment of Sean Hannity by some of Ron Paul's radical supporters.
Another post on this. Wonderful.
Well I guess there are no Ron Paul supporters defending him on this thread and that is good news indeed.
Well consider you gave people what 15 minutes to reply and sift through all your bullshit?

This thread is lame. Sounds like the "Ricky Perry is a God loving Fruit Loop" band wagon took off without a few of it's locals, now they've turned to Ron Paul to bash instead.
 
OP
M

Maple

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
4,674
Reaction score
568
Points
48
Another post on this. Wonderful.
Well I guess there are no Ron Paul supporters defending him on this thread and that is good news indeed.
Well consider you gave people what 15 minutes to reply and sift through all your bullshit?

This thread is lame. Sounds like the "Ricky Perry is a God loving Fruit Loop" band wagon took off without a few of it's locals, now they've turned to Ron Paul to bash instead.
The thread is lame? Then why did you take the time to post on it? I suggest you read all of the article, BTW- I kinda like Rick Perry and the rest of the GOP candidates.
 
OP
M

Maple

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
4,674
Reaction score
568
Points
48
Paul has some good ideas, but his plans for our National Defense. His "none interventionism" is a deal breaker for me.

Sorry, Call me what ever you like. I like living in the most powerful nation on earth. I want us to project our power elsewhere so we don't have to use it here. none interventionism is just another way to say Isolationism. We have tried that one before.

I am reminded of the old saying. When the cat's away the mice will play. What people like Paul do not understand is we are not the only power in the world. If we are not out there projecting our power, and Intervening someone else will be.
I like some of his fiscal ideas, but his foriegn policy would leave us weak and defenseless. Allowing Iran to have a nuke is incredibly stupid. We were isolationists before World War 11, we allowed Hitler to grow and gain in strength, then Pearl Harbor, The Japanese were allies with Germany, we declared war on Japan and then Germany declared war on us. Had it not been that Russia allied with us and turned on Germany we would have lost that war as Hitler had a war on two fronts. Over 100 million people were killed during that war. I never want to go there again, you stamp it out when it is little and you save lives in the long run. Hitler was little at one time.
 

presence06

Rookie
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
32
Reaction score
5
Points
1
Well I guess there are no Ron Paul supporters defending him on this thread and that is good news indeed.
Well consider you gave people what 15 minutes to reply and sift through all your bullshit?

This thread is lame. Sounds like the "Ricky Perry is a God loving Fruit Loop" band wagon took off without a few of it's locals, now they've turned to Ron Paul to bash instead.
The thread is lame? Then why did you take the time to post on it? I suggest you read all of the article, BTW- I kinda like Rick Perry and the rest of the GOP candidates.
This is an opinion forum. I gave my opinion. :eusa_whistle:
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
1,696
Points
205
The American Spectator : Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign

For any of you Ron Paul supporters, an education for you. Take special note of the harrassment of Sean Hannity by some of Ron Paul's radical supporters.Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons:

When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives.

This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul's views are, self-described, "non-interventionist."

The fact that he has been allowed to get away with pretending to conservatism on this score is merely reflective of journalists who, for whatever reason, are simply unfamiliar with American history. Ironically, it is precisely because the Paul campaign has not been thoroughly covered that no one pays attention to the historical paternity of what the candidate is saying.

There is no great sin in Paul's non-interventionist stance (or "isolationist" stance as his critics would have it). There have been American politicians aplenty throughout American history, particularly in the 20th century, who believed precisely as Paul and his enthusiasts do right now. (Paul touts his admiration for the Founding Fathers, but even that is very selective. James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame was a considerable interventionist, Washington as a general invaded Canada, and Alexander Hamilton gave rise to Paul's idea of evil spawn -- the Federal Reserve. Interventionists of all types have been with us right from the start.)
We already have a thread on this, and this article is ridiculous.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8]American Spectator Dead Wrong on Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame]
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
1,696
Points
205
The American Spectator : Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign

For any of you Ron Paul supporters, an education for you. Take special note of the harrassment of Sean Hannity by some of Ron Paul's radical supporters.Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons:

When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives.

This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul's views are, self-described, "non-interventionist."

The fact that he has been allowed to get away with pretending to conservatism on this score is merely reflective of journalists who, for whatever reason, are simply unfamiliar with American history. Ironically, it is precisely because the Paul campaign has not been thoroughly covered that no one pays attention to the historical paternity of what the candidate is saying.

There is no great sin in Paul's non-interventionist stance (or "isolationist" stance as his critics would have it). There have been American politicians aplenty throughout American history, particularly in the 20th century, who believed precisely as Paul and his enthusiasts do right now. (Paul touts his admiration for the Founding Fathers, but even that is very selective. James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame was a considerable interventionist, Washington as a general invaded Canada, and Alexander Hamilton gave rise to Paul's idea of evil spawn -- the Federal Reserve. Interventionists of all types have been with us right from the start.)
And more from this article- now here's my question for you Ron Paul fans are you still a Ron Paul fan after reading this?

Here are the views of various prominent Paul supporters about some conservatives you may be familiar with.

• Ronald Reagan: Here the late Paulist Murray Rothbard labels the conservative presidential icon as a "cretin," Reagan's two-terms in office described as "eight dreary, miserable, mind-numbing years."

• William F. Buckley, Jr.: The man who became the very gold standard of the American conservative movement is viewed as a "defacto totalitarian" here, again in another Rothbard selection from ex-Paul chief of staff Lew Rockwell's site, a site for which Paul himself has written.

• Antonin Scalia: Justice Scalia is not only no conservative in Paulville, he is -- sitting down? -- "a reliable supporter of presidential dictatorship, the police state, the torture-warfare state, and the empire." This gem was penned by ex-Paul chief of staff Rockwell himself.

• Sarah Palin: That's right. This business of Sarah Palin being a conservative, according to Rockwell, is just a ruse. In fact, Governor Palin is really a "double agent" for the "regime." From the same article as above. Oh yes… don't forget Governor Palin is quite possibly a "puppet" (as seen here by Jack Hunter, now the Paul campaign's "official blogger"). Oh, and Mr. Mulshine, the Paulist columnist? To him Palin is "just another whiny liberal claiming victimization."

• Edwin Meese: The former Reagan Attorney General beloved of conservative activists is described in Paulville as the "mouthpiece" for fascists

• The Koch Brothers: The fascists for whom Ed Meese is the fascist mouthpiece? That would be the libertarian Koch brothers who, apparently, aren't libertarian at all in the eyes of Paulville. In Paulville, libertarian conservatives David and Charles Koch are said to be supporters of a "fascist regime." Same post as above. It is surely no coincidence that the Koch brothers were targeted earlier this year by the far-left hacking group Anonymous. As seen in this Politico story. Once again, the right/left neoliberal profile surfaces.

• Clarence Thomas: Dubbed part of a fascist "tag team" by Paul supporters. Why? Because Justice Thomas, along with fellow Justice Scalia, spoke at that gathering sponsored by those fascist Koch brothers. Where Ed Meese was covering as the mouthpiece for the fascists.

• Rush Limbaugh: Rush? Rush Limbaugh? That Rush Limbaugh isn't a conservative? Nope. Not in Paulville. In the eyes of Paulvillians the Rush Limbaugh so many millions of conservatives thought they knew and loved turns out to be a man with "Stalinist tendencies" -- aka a commie. Read all about it here.

• Sean Hannity: So OK, understanding that Sarah Palin is a double agent and a puppet and Rush is pulsing with Stalinist tendencies, surely Sean Hannity -- conservative talk show and TV host extraordinaire, author of the bestselling Conservative Victory -- surely Sean is a real conservative? Naaaaaaaaah. Not in Paulville. There our friend Sean is -- no kidding -- "evil" That's right. You read that right. Hannity is, quite seriously in the minds (?) of Paulville's neolibs, part of the "pantheon of warmongers that make up the true axis of evil." Once that is understood, this video of Ron Paul supporters literally chasing Hannity through the streets of New Hampshire in 2008 can be seen for the leftist intimidation it was intended to be. The fact that the video of Paul supporters chasing Hannity so closely matches this video of Wisconsin leftists chasing and trapping a Wisconsin Republican legislator is a chilling reminder of the commonality of the protestors involved.

• Mark Levin: Come on. So he wrote the bestselling conservative manifesto Liberty and Tyranny.

So Michele Bachmann has called Levin an inspiration to the Tea Party. So Tea Party members were waving the book in the air at their rallies. So what? Levin's no conservative in Paulville. Levin's… you know… wink wink… one of them.

• The Cato Institute: The Cato Institute? The premiere libertarian think tank in America under attack in Paulville? No way! Yup. Here.

There's more -- much more than we have room for here. The Ron Paul campaign's "official blogger" Jack Hunter hates Lincoln but can't find his tongue with Confederate president Jefferson Davis suspending habeas corpus or 100% of the civil liberties of blacks -- aka slavery. Then there's Thomas J. DiLorenzo, whose arguments are recommended reading by Ron Paul. Here's Mr. DiLorenzo on Amazon.
Yeah, how awful.
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
1,696
Points
205
The American Spectator : Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign

For any of you Ron Paul supporters, an education for you. Take special note of the harrassment of Sean Hannity by some of Ron Paul's radical supporters.
Another post on this. Wonderful.
Well I guess there are no Ron Paul supporters defending him on this thread and that is good news indeed.
I'll do my best to address some the claims in this article.

"When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives."

Well I'm a Ron Paul supporter and when it comes to foreign policy or any other issue it's true that I'm not a conservative. However, that doesn't mean that Ron Paul's foreign policy views aren't conservative. Isn't conservatism based on the idea that government should be limited? If so then what could be more conservative than a non-interventionist foreign policy? Robert Taft saw this, Russell Kirk saw this, and Ron Paul sees this. Are we really going to argue that Robert Taft and Russell Kirk weren't conservatives? The author of this article tries to say Taft's non-interventionism was a break with conservatism, but that's obviously ridiculous. Taft's goal was to limit government, and he knew that you can't limit government at home while supporting big government abroad. The author doesn't bother mentioning Russell Kirk at all.

Anti-Semitism

The argument here is because that some people in history who have agreed with some of Paul's ideas, and they might have been anti-semites, which is not very convincingly argued in and of itself, and because Ben Stein once accused Ron Paul of anti-semitism, and Ben Stein is oh so wonderful, Paul must be an anti-semite. Not convinced? Well then it's clear, according to the author, that when we "Paulists" throw around the term "neocon" we really mean "Jew." The author then goes on to define neoconservatism and states that it has nothing to do with being Jewish. I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would agree since he would include George Bush and John McCain as neocons, and I don't think he's mistaking them for Jews.

The author then goes on to list a bunch of "conservatives" and says that Ron Paul hates them. Well, again, if we define a conservative as somebody who wants to limit government then none of those "conservatives" listed are conservatives.

If you're not convinced after reading these very "intelligent" arguments the author then throws in some stuff about how we "Paulists" hate Abraham Lincoln, and calls us neo-confederates.

So there you go. This is an article by an obvious neocon, and I don't mean Jew, who has an axe to grind with Ron Paul because he doesn't like his foreign policy of anti-imperialism, and seeks to slander him so that people won't want to associate with Ron Paul or the "Paulists."
How's that for a defense?
 

Warrior102

Gold Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
16,554
Reaction score
4,120
Points
183
The American Spectator : Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign

For any of you Ron Paul supporters, an education for you. Take special note of the harrassment of Sean Hannity by some of Ron Paul's radical supporters.Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons:

When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives.

This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul's views are, self-described, "non-interventionist."

The fact that he has been allowed to get away with pretending to conservatism on this score is merely reflective of journalists who, for whatever reason, are simply unfamiliar with American history. Ironically, it is precisely because the Paul campaign has not been thoroughly covered that no one pays attention to the historical paternity of what the candidate is saying.

There is no great sin in Paul's non-interventionist stance (or "isolationist" stance as his critics would have it). There have been American politicians aplenty throughout American history, particularly in the 20th century, who believed precisely as Paul and his enthusiasts do right now. (Paul touts his admiration for the Founding Fathers, but even that is very selective. James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame was a considerable interventionist, Washington as a general invaded Canada, and Alexander Hamilton gave rise to Paul's idea of evil spawn -- the Federal Reserve. Interventionists of all types have been with us right from the start.)
Who the fuck is Ron Paul ?
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
1,696
Points
205
Paul has some good ideas, but his plans for our National Defense. His "none interventionism" is a deal breaker for me.

Sorry, Call me what ever you like. I like living in the most powerful nation on earth. I want us to project our power elsewhere so we don't have to use it here. none interventionism is just another way to say Isolationism. We have tried that one before.

I am reminded of the old saying. When the cat's away the mice will play. What people like Paul do not understand is we are not the only power in the world. If we are not out there projecting our power, and Intervening someone else will be.
I like some of his fiscal ideas, but his foriegn policy would leave us weak and defenseless. Allowing Iran to have a nuke is incredibly stupid. We were isolationists before World War 11, we allowed Hitler to grow and gain in strength, then Pearl Harbor, The Japanese were allies with Germany, we declared war on Japan and then Germany declared war on us. Had it not been that Russia allied with us and turned on Germany we would have lost that war as Hitler had a war on two fronts. Over 100 million people were killed during that war. I never want to go there again, you stamp it out when it is little and you save lives in the long run. Hitler was little at one time.
We were noninterventionist before WWII? Really? Spain and the Philippines would disagree with that, and then of course there's WWI to consider. Not exactly textbook noninterventionism. Of course Hitler rose to power because of our interventionism in WWI, so this is historically ridiculous much like Lords's article.
 

Charles_Main

AR15 Owner
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
16,692
Reaction score
2,248
Points
88
Location
Michigan, USA
Paul has some good ideas, but his plans for our National Defense. His "none interventionism" is a deal breaker for me.

Sorry, Call me what ever you like. I like living in the most powerful nation on earth. I want us to project our power elsewhere so we don't have to use it here. none interventionism is just another way to say Isolationism. We have tried that one before.

I am reminded of the old saying. When the cat's away the mice will play. What people like Paul do not understand is we are not the only power in the world. If we are not out there projecting our power, and Intervening someone else will be.
I like some of his fiscal ideas, but his foriegn policy would leave us weak and defenseless. Allowing Iran to have a nuke is incredibly stupid. We were isolationists before World War 11, we allowed Hitler to grow and gain in strength, then Pearl Harbor, The Japanese were allies with Germany, we declared war on Japan and then Germany declared war on us. Had it not been that Russia allied with us and turned on Germany we would have lost that war as Hitler had a war on two fronts. Over 100 million people were killed during that war. I never want to go there again, you stamp it out when it is little and you save lives in the long run. Hitler was little at one time.
We were noninterventionist before WWII? Really? Spain and the Philippines would disagree with that, and then of course there's WWI to consider. Not exactly textbook noninterventionism. Of course Hitler rose to power because of our interventionism in WWI, so this is historically ridiculous much like Lords's article.

If you actually think US intervention in WWI can be blamed for Hitler you are an idiot.

There is no doubt at all that had we not ignored Hitlers repeated Land Grabs in Europe and acted against Germany in 1939 instead of 41. We could have shortened the war and saved Millions of lives. Same for Japan. They have been waging war in SE Asia for nearly a Decade, and we did nothing but indirect economic measures against them. Both Fronts of WWII could have been acted on sooner. That non intervention lead to a much harder war to win in the long run.

Now I do agree with Paul that we often support the wrong guys, if even for good reasons. There is clearly room for improvement on how we pick who we meddle with and what we intervene in, but I for one think we should be doing it.
 
Last edited:

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
1,696
Points
205
I like some of his fiscal ideas, but his foriegn policy would leave us weak and defenseless. Allowing Iran to have a nuke is incredibly stupid. We were isolationists before World War 11, we allowed Hitler to grow and gain in strength, then Pearl Harbor, The Japanese were allies with Germany, we declared war on Japan and then Germany declared war on us. Had it not been that Russia allied with us and turned on Germany we would have lost that war as Hitler had a war on two fronts. Over 100 million people were killed during that war. I never want to go there again, you stamp it out when it is little and you save lives in the long run. Hitler was little at one time.
We were noninterventionist before WWII? Really? Spain and the Philippines would disagree with that, and then of course there's WWI to consider. Not exactly textbook noninterventionism. Of course Hitler rose to power because of our interventionism in WWI, so this is historically ridiculous much like Lords's article.

If you actually think US intervention in WWI can be blamed for Hitler you are an idiot.
Sounds like you've really thought this through.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top