Peter Schiff is a Libertarian Not a Neocon . A Response to all those who have accused

[LibertyPulse.com]

http://libertypulse.com/article/3578

Peter Schiff is a Libertarian Not a Neocon . This video clip is a response to those who have accused Peter Schiff of being a war mongering Neo Con , in this excellent interview Peter Schiff goes in details on what he thinks of the preemptive wars and wars on foreign soils , why he was opposed to the war in Iraq , why we should focus our efforts in solving domestic problems rather than policing the world , in the second part of the interview Peter Schiff speaks about the hot issues of Immigrations and social welfare state , Peter Schiff is for immigration and against any social welfare for immigrants and Americans alike ...

[Dunedain]

Where does he "unsay" he could support a war against Iran in that video?

[Mike4Freedom]

I like that stance on immigration. It's so simple. Do not let them have any government benefits. They probably would stop trying to come over here.

[parocks]

Where does he "unsay" he could support a war against Iran in that video?

What is a neocon? Is a neocon any politician who supports war, or won't rule out supporting war?

What were the politicians called who started the Vietnam war? The term neocon wasn't invented.

I think people should stop throwing around the term neocon when they mean insufficiently antiwar. Some, of course, are neocons.

[Dunedain]

I like that stance on immigration. It's so simple. Do not let them have any government benefits. They probably would stop trying to come over here.

Unfortunately, a president isn't going to be able to stop the welfare state. It has too many heads, arms, legs. The commander in chief can enforce the border however. Maybe not the best solution but it's the only one that would work.

Even PRESIDENT Ron Paul couldn't stop medicare, welfare, medicaid, unemployment, Obamacare, etc.

[Liberty Star]

Some people had jumped to conclusion. While some questions like ones quoted below are unanswered so far, lets wait for publication of his official foreign policy stances before people placing labels.





Does anyone here know:

-What is Peter Schiff's view on Israel-Palestine issue and US aid to Israel/Arabs?

- What is his view on taxpayer funded invasion of foreign coyntries like Iran, Israel if they do not allow UN inspectors in?

These questions have come up indirectly in other discussions but have not been able to find a clear answer.



This is current membership of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they likely have more say in US FP today than even Obama:

Chair:
JF Kerry
Ranking Member:
Richard Lugar

Committee Members

Majority
Christopher J. Dodd
Russell D. Feingold
Barbara Boxer
..


FP is an important issue for all Comgress members but a particularly important issue for prospective Senators.

[Dunedain]

What is a neocon? Is a neocon any politician who supports war, or won't rule out supporting war?

What were the politicians called who started the Vietnam war? The term neocon wasn't invented.

I think people should stop throwing around the term neocon when they mean insufficiently antiwar. Some, of course, are neocons.

I never used the term, "Neo-con" in this thread.

But to answer your question: a neo-con is a person would support a proxy war against Iran on Israel's behalf. Like Schiff.

[jmdrake]

What is a neocon? Is a neocon any politician who supports war, or won't rule out supporting war?

What were the politicians called who started the Vietnam war? The term neocon wasn't invented.

I think people should stop throwing around the term neocon when they mean insufficiently antiwar. Some, of course, are neocons.

And I think you should quit throwing around the term "socialist".

The fact is that we all have different things that are most important for us. But if we go back to the roots of this country "Friendship and trade with all and entangling alliances toward none" would not mean threatening to bomb a country that actually helped us drive out the Taliban from Afghanistan. Is "Obamacare" a threat to America? You bet. But so is a needless war with Iran. Especially if Iran ever decided that the threat against them was existential and they made good on the threat to shut down the straits of Harmuz. Plus the "Islamic Republic" we helped come to power in Iraq is more closely aligned with Iran than they are with us.

That said, I think Schiff was simply agreeing with a potential voter as quickly as possible.

[V-rod]

You know, just because someone isn't a strong pacifist like Dr. Paul doesn't mean they are a neo-con

[parocks]

Does the Government own stock in Auto Companies? I think I heard something about that. Something about a government bureaucrat firing the head of GM (or was it Chrysler?) That kinda stuff - that's what socialism is.

What's neocon exactly?


And I think you should quit throwing around the term "socialist".

The fact is that we all have different things that are most important for us. But if we go back to the roots of this country "Friendship and trade with all and entangling alliances toward none" would not mean threatening to bomb a country that actually helped us drive out the Taliban from Afghanistan. Is "Obamacare" a threat to America? You bet. But so is a needless war with Iran. Especially if Iran ever decided that the threat against them was existential and they made good on the threat to shut down the straits of Harmuz. Plus the "Islamic Republic" we helped come to power in Iraq is more closely aligned with Iran than they are with us.

That said, I think Schiff was simply agreeing with a potential voter as quickly as possible.

[parocks]

I never used the term, "Neo-con" in this thread.

But to answer your question: a neo-con is a person would support a proxy war against Iran on Israel's behalf. Like Schiff.

Ok. And you are correct when you say that you didn't use the word neocon in your op.

[Greenly]

YouTube - Ron Paul names Neo-Cons on House Floor July 10 2003 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNb_610L0GE)

YouTube - Peter Schiff says Bomb Iran's Nukes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQfLLabFqIY)

[purplechoe]

I'm not gonna shit all over Peter but I'm not gonna lift a finger to help his campaign untill we get some official stances on foreign policy. So far on bombing Iran, Peter either is trying to cozy up to neocons or he's just ignorant on foreign policy.

[purplechoe]

You know, just because someone isn't a strong pacifist like Dr. Paul doesn't mean they are a neo-con

Yeah, lets wrap ourselves in a flag and bomb some country that has never done anything to us. A pacifist? Maybe he's just not a psychopath like you? When the battle starts, I nominate you to go in front of the line in battle for opperation human shield... :rolleyes:

I dare you to go up to Adam Kokesh and say that to his face...

[jmdrake]

Does the Government own stock in Auto Companies? I think I heard something about that. Something about a government bureaucrat firing the head of GM (or was it Chrysler?) That kinda stuff - that's what socialism is.

What's neocon exactly?

Did the government threaten to fire the head of BankOfAmerica under the last administration? Yes. Did the last administration push to increase the lending of government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Yes. Did the government under the last administration push for a prescription drug benefit in order to stave off the free market solution of importing drugs? Yes. But you only see "socialism" when a democrat is in the Whitehouse. :rolleyes:

And I see you've totally ignored everything I said about our recent history with Iran. Why is that? Do you think attacking a country that helped us drive out the Taliban is a good idea?

[jmdrake]

You know, just because someone isn't a strong pacifist like Dr. Paul doesn't mean they are a neo-con

You know, Dr. Paul did vote for use of force against Afghanistan. He also has pushed for letters of marque and reprisal in order to really declare war on al qaeda instead of using the term "fighting terrorism" as a euphemism for the government simply doing whatever it wants whenever it wants. Ron Paul subscribes to the just war theory. Do you think bombing another country that is no threat to us over some WMD intelligence fits into the just war theory, especially when that country helped us against the Taliban and tried to help us against Al Qaeda? Does that even make sense?

Note: I still think it makes sense to support Peter Schiff. But that doesn't mean excusing what is an inexcusable statement. That said I would hope that anyone who's willing to take imperfection on foreign policy would also take imperfection on domestic policy. Don't forget the core principles Dr. Paul laid out when he had a joint press conference with presidential candidates Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin.

[parocks]

Was it you who I had this very same argument with?

Was it you who I who brought up socialism in the first place on this thread?

We're talking about "neocon" here.

I believe the argument I made last time is that Bush Admin didn't fire anybody.
Obama's did. And whoever I was having the argument with just didn't get the difference between didn't and did. Next time I want to argue about who is more socialist Bush or Obama, I'm sure you'll be there, or someone will.

This is about whether Schiff is a neocon, and what the definition of neocon is.


Did the government threaten to fire the head of BankOfAmerica under the last administration? Yes. Did the last administration push to increase the lending of government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Yes. Did the government under the last administration push for a prescription drug benefit in order to stave off the free market solution of importing drugs? Yes. But you only see "socialism" when a democrat is in the Whitehouse. :rolleyes:

And I see you've totally ignored everything I said about our recent history with Iran. Why is that? Do you think attacking a country that helped us drive out the Taliban is a good idea?

[jmdrake]

Was it you who I had this very same argument with?

Was it you who I who brought up socialism in the first place on this thread?

We're talking about "neocon" here.

I believe the argument I made last time is that Bush Admin didn't fire anybody.
Obama's did. And whoever I was having the argument with just didn't get the difference between didn't and did. Next time I want to argue about who is more socialist Bush or Obama, I'm sure you'll be there, or someone will.


Oh I understand the difference between did and didn't. You don't understand the if you threaten to fire someone and they knuckle under and do what you want then you've accomplished the same thing as if you had fired them. It's still an abuse of power. To put it another way a boss who fires a secretary because she won't sleep with him is no worse than a boss who only threatens to fire her but then doesn't because she does sleep with him.



This is about whether Schiff is a neocon, and what the definition of neocon is.

You brought up people who throw around the term "neocon". I said you throw around the term "socialist". I'm talking about the hypocrisy of complaining about people throwing around labels when you are someone who throws around labels. But I'm sure you just don't get it.

Back on target, Ron Paul laid down 4 core principles as to the types of candidates we should support. He neither brought up the terms "neocon" nor "socialist". The 4 core principles were 1) foreign policy, 2) privacy, 3) national debt and 4) the federal reserve. You would do yourself well to review these and quit fretting over who's is a neocon or a socialist.

See: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ron-Paul-Press-Conference-by-Kevin-Zeese-080910-177.html

[LibForestPaul]

I never used the term, "Neo-con" in this thread.

But to answer your question: a neo-con is a person would support a proxy war against Iran on Israel's behalf. Like Schiff.

ditto! :)

[nobody's_hero]

I'm not gonna shit all over Peter but I'm not gonna lift a finger to help his campaign untill we get some official stances on foreign policy. So far on bombing Iran, Peter either is trying to cozy up to neocons or he's just ignorant on foreign policy.

I believe his wobbly position is due to a sincere ignorance. He's probably never given much thought to political issues other than the economy—that's his strongest selling point, and he's damn good at it. Contrarily, in situations where he's asked about foreign policy, his response isn't refined, like Ron Paul's or Adam Kokesh's. I suppose it could be that he doesn't want to piss off the neocons in the room, but I'm starting to think it could more of a lack of experience in answering those kinds of questions and/or lack of necessity to take up a position on the foreign policy issue until now. Consider, he's been commenting on the economy for a long time, and can give thoughtful answers and reasoning for his predictions. As for foreign policy, his comments are usually brief, and just touch the tip of the iceberg.

Peter's already admitted that he doesn't intend to, or care about, getting re-elected, so I think we can assume that he's not in it to get his jollies off on the exercising of power. Furthermore, he makes a shitload of money not being involved in politics, and actually could make a lot more if he simply stayed out of it and let government continue on its present course, and continue to make his predictions based upon the Fed's errors.

I think more of us Ron Paul folks at Peter's campaign trail events should ask questions related to foreign policy. The neocon sheeple in the room may hiss and boo at first, but how else are they going to learn? :p

Of course, if it is indeed ignorance, no one is going to correct him if we don't.

[qh4dotcom]

Come on everyone...I didn't like what Peter said but we need him in the Senate...he's a fighter and he'll be talking and screaming in the Senate until he drops dead or accomplishes his goal of saving our country...this is no time to stop supporting him...if we talked him into running, we can talk him out of bombing Iran....if you want a candidate whom you agree with 100% then you go run for office.

[Liberty Star]

I think many people will wait for publication of his official foreign policy views before deciding.

[TotalLiberty]

You know, just because someone isn't a strong pacifist like Dr. Paul doesn't mean they are a neo-con

RP isn't a "pacifist", he believes in self-defense.
Self-defense has nothing to do with attacking a country because someone in the government thinks they have WMD's. This is what Schiff wants.

Neocon or not, Schiff is no libertarian.

Peter, I have met Ron Paul, and let me tell you sir, you are NO RON PAUL!

[TotalLiberty]

Come on everyone...I didn't like what Peter said but we need him in the Senate...he's a fighter and he'll be talking and screaming in the Senate until he drops dead or accomplishes his goal of saving our country...this is no time to stop supporting him...if we talked him into running, we can talk him out of bombing Iran....if you want a candidate whom you agree with 100% then you go run for office.

The problem is, there is nothing to "save" about our government. Our "country" will go on just fine without it.

[qh4dotcom]

The problem is, there is nothing to "save" about our government. Our "country" will go on just fine without it.

I wasn't talking about saving the government, I was talking about saving our country from the government.

[TotalLiberty]

I wasn't talking about saving the government, I was talking about saving our country from the government.

And what would be the best way to do that? How about freedom from government?

[pacelli]

Peter's big "If...." was a premise based on Iran not permitting our weapons inspectors to snoop around in their country. He said that IF they didn't let our inspectors in, he would advocate bombing them. I'm against that mindset. I think that if Iran has advanced technologically that they can develop nuclear weapons, then Iran can make nuclear weapons to their heart's content... kind of like the United States, Russia, and Israel have been doing since the 1950's. I really don't see a problem, and don't understand "If...then" clauses on bombing campaigns.

I'm against weapons inspectors, and any other logical point that would follow the phrase "weapons inspectors" in Peter's "If.. then" statement.

I'm not a Connecticut resident, and Peter's got a long race ahead of him. Hopefully the residents of Connecticut weigh all the issues and figure out who they want to vote for.

Incidentally I am listening to this clip, and I'm not hearing anything at all about Iran.

[devil21]

What is a neocon? Is a neocon any politician who supports war, or won't rule out supporting war?

Politicians that support continuing the pointless, expensive and bloody middle east wars that only make Israel safer while making Americans less safe. Clear enough?



What were the politicians called who started the Vietnam war? The term neocon wasn't invented.

I believe the term is "liars" since the Vietnam War was based on a confirmed false flag attack, the Gulf of Tonkin episode.



I think people should stop throwing around the term neocon when they mean insufficiently antiwar. Some, of course, are neocons.

I think it's entirely possible for a politician to be a neo-con on foreign policy but not so much on domestic issues. Neo-con tends to be an all-encompassing term used rather loosely. FWIW, I never called Schiff a neo-con. But I don't like his foreign policy of interventionism. He's not a libertarian though. If you can cite particular examples of a Libertarian platform supporting pre-emptive and "preventive" military strikes on foreign countries then I'll consider revising my opinion.

[LibertyPulse.com]

Suggestion for all Liberty Candidates:

Letters of Marque and Reprisal

http://www.progress.org/fold232.htm