Tea-o-con Rally in DC??

[speciallyblend]

I keep hearing about a rally in dc. I can only assume these are neo-cons trying to hi-jack our movement??

I haven't heard one word of a Liberty Movment march on Dc, so i can only assume this is nothing but a gop establishment attempt at trying to hi-jack the liberty movement!

any thoughts on this so-called march on dc??

[Matt Collins]

8/28 - it's the glenn beck thing.

[FrankRep]

Supporting the Military doesn't make you a Neocon.

[speciallyblend]

Supporting the Military doesn't make you a Neocon.

i know that;) but mention glenn beck and it does explain alot;) this is not the Liberty Movement! this is gop establishment trying to fool folks once again!!

sorry mention glenn beck= do not trust source in my opinion but the good news we can convert folks at this march. At least they are mostly registered republican already. better chance at converting to support ron paul then ron paul supporters themselves;)

[Chieppa1]

Yeah, my parents are going. Kind of disappointed. I thought I had opened their eyes a little more then that. Beck, Palin...And the brochure they had on it had Mr. Lincoln on it. I mean, who's more small government then him....:rolleyes:

[charrob]

....

[speciallyblend]

..

link not going thru?

[LibertyMage]

If you continually take the position that we must abstain from dealing with people that aren't 100% on board, I suggest you reconsider your knowledge of grassroots politics. Politics is about connecting with people on what is important to them, not what is important to you. Once you have connected with people, they will be more apt to consider your opinions that they may disagree with as you have established a rapport with them. The Maryland Campaign for Liberty will be bringing more than 11 buses full of members to the event to do just that.

[ninepointfive]

I know we had the original Tea Parties. And since then there have been many more groups to spring up in the meantime. These groups are aligned with our goals, we just need to show them the right path to get there. I wouldn't say these other Tea Party groups have hijacked us. We just took our ball and went home. They took theirs out and started to play.

Some people give this guy the credit for the more recent Tea Party progress: Rick Santelli's Rant (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k&vq=medium)

Shall we strategize on how to take these parties back under an aligned goal of electing Ron Paul types?

[charrob]

link not going thru?

hi, sorry, i just tested it-- just click on the little arrow...

[speciallyblend]

If you continually take the position that we must abstain from dealing with people that aren't 100% on board, I suggest you reconsider your knowledge of grassroots politics. Politics is about connecting with people on what is important to them, not what is important to you. Once you have connected with people, they will be more apt to consider your opinions that they may disagree with as you have established a rapport with them. The Maryland Campaign for Liberty will be bringing more than 11 buses full of members to the event to do just that.

i said no such thing? you must be misreading my post. I actually said we have a better chance to convert neo-cons then we do ron paul supporters;) most are already registered republican;)

[speciallyblend]

I know we had the original Tea Parties. And since then there have been many more groups to spring up in the meantime. These groups are aligned with our goals, we just need to show them the right path to get there. I wouldn't say these other Tea Party groups have hijacked us. We just took our ball and went home. They took theirs out and started to play.

Some people give this guy the credit for the more recent Tea Party progress: Rick Santelli's Rant (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k&vq=medium)

Shall we strategize on how to take these parties back under an aligned goal of electing Ron Paul types?

i am all for trying to convert them;) hell from a poll on rpf forums. It seems easier to convert neo-cons then non republican ron paul supporters;)

[speciallyblend]

Supporting the Military doesn't make you a Neocon.

and saying you support the military and making a parade OF IT,DOESN'T MEAN THEY SUPPORT THE MILITARY. WHEN THEY ARE IN FACT THE ONES SENDING THEM OVER there TO DIE!! oop caps but i hear you;) i know people are individuals not one!!

[Brett85]

i know that;) but mention glenn beck and it does explain alot;) this is not the Liberty Movement! this is gop establishment trying to fool folks once again!!

sorry mention glenn beck= do not trust source in my opinion but the good news we can convert folks at this march. At least they are mostly registered republican already. better chance at converting to support ron paul then ron paul supporters themselves;)

Glenn Beck isn't part of the GOP establishment. He's not even a Republican.

[speciallyblend]

Glenn Beck isn't part of the GOP establishment. He's not even a Republican.

i know that to,but he is a shill talking head and has done more damage then helping the liberty movement! beck should never be trusted! he is nothing more then a media whore and he may not be republican but he takes his orders from the typical neo-con establishment as far as i can see! beck is not to be trusted!

[speciallyblend]

Glenn Beck isn't part of the GOP establishment. He's not even a Republican.

he may not be republican but he is part of the failed gop establishment because he is a talking shill for them!! no matter what he says on his show! beck is no libertarian ,no matter how many times he repeats it. doesn't make it true!!

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, my parents are going.

Let us know how it went!

From Beck's description of this on his radio show, the rally is going to be somewhere between an AA meeting and an evangelical revival. To really boil it all down, he has decided that only God can change the country. Everybody will do the Ghost Dance, and all evil will be swept away... :rolleyes:

[speciallyblend]

Let us know how it went!

From Beck's description of this on his radio show, the rally is going to be somewhere between an AA meeting and an evangelical revival. To really boil it all down, he has decided that only God can change the country. Everybody will do the Ghost Dance, and all evil will be swept away... :rolleyes:

maybe the dc police will mistake their ghost dance for aggressive threats and____________!! sarcasm

[james1906]

Will Rick Perry be there to french kiss him?

[RedStripe]

Supporting the Military doesn't make you a Neocon.

But it makes you dumb.

Unless you mean "i hope X people don't die"

In which case we should "support" all militaries

that is, if you actually believe in the teachings of christ

[Brett85]

he may not be republican but he is part of the failed gop establishment because he is a talking shill for them!! no matter what he says on his show! beck is no libertarian ,no matter how many times he repeats it. doesn't make it true!!

He's libertarian leaning. He's not a down the line libertarian. But he's more libertarian than Hannity and Limbaugh. And I don't agree with you that he just repeats talking points. He's his own man who has his own views on the issues, even if you don't happen to agree with him on everything.

[speciallyblend]

He's libertarian leaning. He's not a down the line libertarian. But he's more libertarian than Hannity and Limbaugh. And I don't agree with you that he just repeats talking points. He's his own man who has his own views on the issues, even if you don't happen to agree with him on everything.

we disagree i guess. i will never trust beck. he is nothing more then a media whore!

[Brett85]

we disagree i guess. i will never trust beck. he is nothing more then a media whore!

I don't know what you mean by "trust." I just like watching him for entertainment purposes. But it's not like I'm part of some Glenn Beck cult. Lol.

[dealerjim]

Considering Stossel and the Judge are the only two true libertarians on tv, and they're only on once a week, I watch Beck to fill the void. I definitely don't agree with him on everything but he's about the closest thing to a libertarian who's actually on every day. His association with Palin and Perry drives me nuts and he seems a little hypocritical when his theme is "question with boldness", yet he demonized Medina for questioning the governments official story about 9-11.

I thoroughly enjoy his American history shows. I love learning about history that I wasn't taught in school. He's far from a true libertarian but his heart is in the right place "for the most part".

[RonPaulGetsIt]

It's easy to weed out the carpetbagger tea party guys. Ask them specifically which departments of the government they would eliminate, which programs they would end, and get them on the record. If they are can't or won't commit to them they are frauds.

As far as the military goes, discuss the pricing mechanism for military contracts and the like. Any true fiscal conservative should be willing to at the very least acknowledge that there simply shouldn't be a blank check.

[LibertyMage]

i said no such thing? you must be misreading my post. I actually said we have a better chance to convert neo-cons then we do ron paul supporters;) most are already registered republican;)

My comment wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the binary sentiment that is predominant on these forums. In 2008 our enemies weren't the liberals - our enemies were the neocons and this has created a pretty hostile sentiment towards working with any Republican that doesn't pass the litmus test off the bat. We need to change that.

[Brett85]

It's easy to weed out the carpetbagger tea party guys. Ask them specifically which departments of the government they would eliminate, which programs they would end, and get them on the record. If they are can't or won't commit to them they are frauds.

As far as the military goes, discuss the pricing mechanism for military contracts and the like. Any true fiscal conservative should be willing to at the very least acknowledge that there simply shouldn't be a blank check.

Glenn Beck has publicly said that the Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture should be abolished. He also had a segment with two CATO people where they talked about cutting defense spending.

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Glenn Beck has publicly said that the Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture should be abolished. He also had a segment with two CATO people where they talked about cutting defense spending.

Has Palin said what she would eliminate?

How about income taxes? We know what Ron Paul thinks they should be. Zero. If these other guys say any number higher than zero I have no interest. Stealing is stealing whether at 35% of income or 25%.

[Brett85]

Has Palin said what she would eliminate?

How about income taxes? We know what Ron Paul thinks they should be. Zero. If these other guys say any number higher than zero I have no interest. Stealing is stealing whether at 35% of income or 25%.

It would be great if there were no income taxes, but you could never cut spending enough to make up for all the lost revenue. Mike Huckabee supports abolishing the IRS and replacing it with a national consumption tax. That's the best we could hope for. At least people could have some control over the amount of taxes they paid.

[Stary Hickory]

Has Palin said what she would eliminate?

How about income taxes? We know what Ron Paul thinks they should be. Zero. If these other guys say any number higher than zero I have no interest. Stealing is stealing whether at 35% of income or 25%.

If these guys said 1% and could do it I would have a GREAT interest in that. We got to this hell hole incrementally we need to work ourselves back out that way at the very least if we can't just take care of it all at once.

[speciallyblend]

My comment wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the binary sentiment that is predominant on these forums. In 2008 our enemies weren't the liberals - our enemies were the neocons and this has created a pretty hostile sentiment towards working with any Republican that doesn't pass the litmus test off the bat. We need to change that.

i totally agree! from the poll on rpf. it seems many of the converts were actually neo-cons. I thought it was very interesting. at least we don't have to argue with them to become a republican and a delegate;)

[Brian4Liberty]

the beck convention isn't supposed to be political

Isn't it supposed to be both religious and political?

[Deborah K]

sorry mention glenn beck= do not trust source in my opinion but the good news we can convert folks at this march. At least they are mostly registered republican already. better chance at converting to support ron paul then ron paul supporters themselves;)

Excellent perspective. :)

[AuH2O]

Isn't it supposed to be both religious and political?

It's more of a reverent, cultural event rather than a political/Tea Party thing.

[HOLLYWOOD]

i know that;) but mention glenn beck and it does explain alot;) this is not the Liberty Movement! this is gop establishment trying to fool folks once again!!

sorry mention glenn beck= do not trust source in my opinion but the good news we can convert folks at this march. At least they are mostly registered republican already. better chance at converting to support ron paul then ron paul supporters themselves;)

Yeah this is the 8/28 version of 9/12 last year, it's @ the local/regional level rallies too. I had to school the regional TP zombie leaders on a bunch of blatantly wrong messages and activist actions/messages a couple of months ago. My objection to their endorsement to Scott Brown, as an example, gave them a "wake up & smell the political Duopoly BS". Pretty cool now... they're keeping it neutral and doing the more homework.

Here's ResistNet gist on it: http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/we-need-a-tea-party-rally-in

I just wish all the people would turn off there TV sets. Many Parrot FOX NEWS garbage verbatim.

PS: I almost puked when one middle aged woman said to FOX NEOCON puke Michael Reagan, "We Love You Michael".


Checkout THINK PROGRESS' coverage of Beck/TEA PARTY: ht tp://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/24/beck-tea-party/

[Brett85]

Isn't it supposed to be both religious and political?

I think it's just a rally to support the troops. Nobody should have a problem with that regardless of what your political views are.

[A. Havnes]

I think it's just a rally to support the troops. Nobody should have a problem with that regardless of what your political views are.

The Ed Show did. :rolleyes:

He said it was racist, or some such thing.

Here's the page for it. Video is hilarious. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30031533/

[AuH2O]

I think it's just a rally to support the troops. Nobody should have a problem with that regardless of what your political views are.

The money raised goes to the troops, but the message is broader. It's about founding fathers, civil rights, a whole bunch of cultural/religious stuff.

[rprprs]

If you continually take the position that we must abstain from dealing with people that aren't 100% on board, I suggest you reconsider your knowledge of grassroots politics. Politics is about connecting with people on what is important to them, not what is important to you. Once you have connected with people, they will be more apt to consider your opinions that they may disagree with as you have established a rapport with them. The Maryland Campaign for Liberty will be bringing more than 11 buses full of members to the event to do just that.


My comment wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the binary sentiment that is predominant on these forums. In 2008 our enemies weren't the liberals - our enemies were the neocons and this has created a pretty hostile sentiment towards working with any Republican that doesn't pass the litmus test off the bat. We need to change that.

This need to be stressed on these boards. Far too many here are seemingly ready to throw up their hands and walk away in disgust at the first sign of impurity, thus leaving groups like the Tea Party to the mercy of neocons and other establishment-types and opportunists. Where the various Tea Partiy events have been co-opted, it is due in no small part to our abandonment of them. It is disingenious to criticize the make-up of a group when we have failed to engage and hold fast.

[charrob]

I think it's just a rally to support the troops. Nobody should have a problem with that regardless of what your political views are.

By honoring the troops you honor the mission. I have a problem with that.

[Brett85]

This need to be stressed on these boards. Far too many here are seemingly ready to throw up their hands and walk away in disgust at the first sign of impurity, thus leaving groups like the Tea Party to the mercy of neocons and other establishment-types and opportunists. Where the various Tea Partiy events have been co-opted, it is due in no small part to our abandonment of them. It is disingenious to criticize the make-up of a group when we have failed to engage and hold fast.

Exactly. It's funny that some of my conservative friends think that I'm a hard core libertarian, and people here call me a "statist." Even Ron Paul himself is a right leaning libertarian, which many people easily forget.

[Brett85]

By honoring the troops you honor the mission. I have a problem with that.

Nope. That's the same card that the neocons play, that you can't honor the troops if you don't agree with their mission. That's BS. I love our troops and think they're heroic, but I don't believe that we should be using them for nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/64288.html

At the beginning of his show this morning, Glenn Beck started ripping into the imam that all the talk-radio hosts love to hate, because the imam has (correctly) pointed out that the U.S. has killed many more innocent non-Muslims than al-Qaeda has.

Beck went on to defend the U.S. embargo against Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people during the 1990s, argued that we should have fought the Iraq war “full on” from the beginning (meaning we shouldn’t have been so squeamish — as if “we” were — about killing innocent people), and claimed that the current U.S. government is the only one in the history of the world that has ever fought wars in a manner that avoided killing civilians.

Last year, Beck promoted a rally in Washington to protest the federal government’s taxing and spending. This year, he’s holding a rally to glorify the U.S. military. Can there be any doubt that by the time the Republicans regain control in Washington, Beck and his many followers will be right back where all the conservatives were during the George W. Bush years? Only it will be much worse, because they’ll have much bigger, more powerful government at their disposal, which they will not reduce one bit. And one shudders to think of what the apparent growing extreme, irrational hatred of Muslims may lead to.

Unless, that is, Ron Paul and other true libertarians can steer the Tea Party movement onto the right track before it’s too late.

As a good first step, it’s time for everyone — including some people who should know better — to stop suggesting that Glenn Beck is any sort of libertarian.

[heavenlyboy34]

Nope. That's the same card that the neocons play, that you can't honor the troops if you don't agree with their mission. That's BS. I love our troops and think they're heroic, but I don't believe that we should be using them for nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What's heroic about being a strongarm for the State?

[charrob]

Nope. That's the same card that the neocons play, that you can't honor the troops if you don't agree with their mission. That's BS. I love our troops and think they're heroic, but I don't believe that we should be using them for nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.


I would have agreed with you at the beginning of these wars: when active duty soldiers were already in the service and were stuck engaging in all these tours of duty. However, that's ended.

The current flock in the military are those that chose to be there and to take part in this killing mission. I have no respect for them whatsoever, and i sure as hell am not going to 'honor' them for being paid assassins.

[Brett85]

What's heroic about being a strongarm for the State?


What's heroic is that they sacrifice their lives for their country. That takes more guts then you and I will ever have. And what's with all this anarchist talk? Ron Paul would never say the kind of stuff that I read on this forum.

[Brett85]

I would have agreed with you at the beginning of these wars: when active duty soldiers were already in the service and were stuck engaging in all these tours of duty. However, that's ended.

The current flock in the military are those that chose to be there and to take part in this killing mission. I have no respect for them whatsoever, and i sure as hell am not going to 'honor' them for being paid assassins.

I don't agree with you that the mission is somehow "evil" and that our military is evil. I think it's noble to try to liberate people and spread democracy, but it's simply unrealistic and costs too much money. But I'm not going to call our soldiers "assassins" for wanting to serve our country. That's outrageous.

[charrob]

I think it's noble to try to liberate people and spread democracy

-by the point of a gun? It would be like the Chinese coming over here and "liberating" us to communism.



but it's simply unrealistic and costs too much money.

that's the *only* reason these wars bother you?????


But I'm not going to call our soldiers "assassins" for wanting to serve our country.

-why? -it's the truth.

[Brett85]

-by the point of a gun? It would be like the Chinese coming over here and "liberating" us to communism.

I didn't say that I agree with it. I just said that our intentions aren't evil. You aren't going to convince very many people to join our side with anti American and anti military rhetoric. The issue has to be phrased carefully to get more people to join our side.


that's the *only* reason these wars bother you?????

No, of course the loss of life bothers me as well. I just don't agree that we're actually targeting civilians. We've never done that. Also, I think that by focusing on the cost of the war we bring more fiscal conservatives over to our side.

-why? -it's the truth.

Again, you're just driving people away from the movement who may be otherwise sympathetic to a non interventionalist foreign policy.

[charrob]

Again, you're just driving people away from the movement who may be otherwise sympathetic to a non interventionalist foreign policy.


If the movement embraces neocons, people like me are gone. Outta here. So, fine, embrace your neocons, but you're going to lose alot of other people.

The thought that the only thing that bothers you about these wars are the cost to our country makes me ill.

[Brett85]

If the movement embraces neocons, people like me are gone. Outta here. So, fine, embrace your neocons, but you're going to lose alot of other people.

The thought that the only thing that bothers you about these wars are the cost to our country makes me ill.

Read my post. I said that the loss of life bothers me as well. The fact that somebody doesn't hate our country and our military doesn't make them a "neocon." If I ever heard Ron Paul say anything even remotely similar to the kind of garbage that you say about our troops, I would never even consider voting for him.

[low preference guy]

If the movement embraces neocons, people like me are gone. Outta here. So, fine, embrace your neocons, but you're going to lose alot of other people.

The thought that the only thing that bothers you about these wars are the cost to our country makes me ill.

I hope you are gone. People like you who instead of wanting to repeal the FCC like Dr. Paul does want to sign a petition to use the FCC to violate the private property of businesses and implement the latest coercive fad (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=256901) are enemies of liberty.

Please go away, in case you needed encouragement.

[charrob]

Go to hell.

[charrob]

I hope you are gone. People like you who instead of wanting to repeal the FCC like Dr. Paul does want to sign a petition to use the FCC to violate the private property of businesses and implement the latest coercive fad (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=256901) are enemies of liberty.

Please go away, in case you needed encouragement.

Go to hell.

[Brett85]

Go to hell.

We're already there.

[Chieppa1]

Ted Nugent is gonna be there. And I just can't get over having it in front of the Lincoln. Nothing screams "the state" to me then him.

[charrob]

Administer: please cancel my account.

thank you.

[speciallyblend]

before you 2 have an internet fight,please make sure you register republican and become a delegate and get involved!

[heavenlyboy34]

What's heroic is that they sacrifice their lives for their country. That takes more guts then you and I will ever have. And what's with all this anarchist talk? Ron Paul would never say the kind of stuff that I read on this forum.

No, they risk their lives for special interests, as General Smedley Butler eloquently put it. I don't think it's very courageous to shoot innocent people and drop bombs on them. It would be brave to perhaps fight the 20th century Red Army or German Army/luftwaffe, but come ON! Using high tech weapons like drones on a stone age society is not even CLOSE to "brave".

YouTube - Smedley Butler War IS A Racket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG10C5hniV4)

[Brett85]

No, they risk their lives for special interests, as General Smedley Butler eloquently put it. I don't think it's very courageous to shoot innocent people and drop bombs on them. It would be brave to perhaps fight the 20th century Red Army or German Army/luftwaffe, but come ON! Using high tech weapons like drones on a stone age society is not even CLOSE to "brave".

YouTube - Smedley Butler War IS A Racket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG10C5hniV4)

We go out of our way to avoid killing civilians. We're basically the only country in the world that's noble enough to do that.

[charrob]

we go out of our way to avoid killing civilians. We're basically the only country in the world that's noble enough to do that.


why in god's name do you like ron paul???

He's against everything you are saying. He doesn't see this as a "noble" mission. Nobody over there is our enemy: Everybody that dies is an innocent.

[charrob]

i hope you are gone. People like you who instead of wanting to repeal the fcc like dr. Paul does want to sign a petition to use the fcc to violate the private property of businesses and implement the latest coercive fad (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=256901) are enemies of liberty.

Please go away, in case you needed encouragement.

as for you: Go fuck yourself you goddammed bastard.

[Brett85]

why in god's name do you like ron paul???

He's against everything you are saying. He doesn't see this as a "noble" mission. Nobody over there is our enemy: Everybody that dies is an innocent.

Ron Paul doesn't use anti military and anti American rhetoric life yourself. I think Ron Paul would say that those who support the mission in Afghanistan have noble intentions. I like Ron Paul because he wants to reduce the size of the federal government and bring our troops home from around the world. Anyway, I thought you were cancelling your account?????

[RedStripe]

We go out of our way to avoid killing civilians. We're basically the only country in the world that's noble enough to do that.

ahahahahahahahaha

what cave do you post from?

[RedStripe]

why in god's name do you like ron paul???

He's against everything you are saying. He doesn't see this as a "noble" mission. Nobody over there is our enemy: Everybody that dies is an innocent.

Don't leave. Not everyone on here is a close-minded idiot.

[Brian4Liberty]

Wow people. Calm down! Sticking to the issues is more productive...


I think it's just a rally to support the troops. Nobody should have a problem with that regardless of what your political views are.

As for this whole derail, I have heard nothing from Beck that this is a "support the troops" rally, and I catch part of his radio show every day. The way he is portraying it is like his AA philosophy: people can't handle these things alone, you must turn yourselves over to God. It's obviously Beck's AA training coming out, as well as a big dose of a religious agenda.

We'll get the reports after it happens...

[Brian4Liberty]

We go out of our way to avoid killing civilians. We're basically the only country in the world that's noble enough to do that.

That is a direct quote from Beck's radio show yesterday...I see you do listen.

[AuH2O]

As for this whole derail, I have heard nothing from Beck that this is a "support the troops" rally, and I catch part of his radio show every day. The way he is portraying it is like his AA philosophy: people can't handle these things alone, you must turn yourselves over to God. It's obviously Beck's AA training coming out, as well as a big dose of a religious agenda.

We'll get the reports after it happens...

As I said before, all funds are going to Wounder Warriors, so in that sense, it IS about the troops. But you are correct, the theme is much broader . . . although not wholly religious.

[Brett85]

That is a direct quote from Beck's radio show yesterday...I see you do listen.

I didn't listen to it. I just have my own views. Basically what you and other people are saying is that I can't be opposed to the nation building experiment in Afghanistan without criticizing our troops and saying that our mission is "evil." Can't I simply be allowed to say that what we're doing is misguided and bad policy?

[Brian4Liberty]

I didn't listen to it. I just have my own views. Basically what you and other people are saying is that I can't be opposed to the nation building experiment in Afghanistan without criticizing our troops and saying that our mission is "evil." Can't I simply be allowed to say that what we're doing is misguided and bad policy?

Actually, I haven't been disputing that with you. I also support our troops but don't support the current missions. It is usually the people who do support the "mission" that love to equate the two, which is probably what pisses a lot of people here off.

[RedStripe]

What the hell does it mean to support the troops? Anyone with some intellectual balls want to actually answer that for once?

Cause if it only means "i hope they don't suffer" then you should be supportive of all troops and there's no point in saying it other to just fit into the flag-waving moron crowd.

[Brian4Liberty]

As I said before, all funds are going to Wounder Warriors, so in that sense, it IS about the troops. But you are correct, the theme is much broader . . . although not wholly religious.

I assume you mean "Wounded Warriors"? ;)

As much as I hear Beck, I hadn't heard that. A good cause judging by the name.

[heavenlyboy34]

I didn't listen to it. I just have my own views. Basically what you and other people are saying is that I can't be opposed to the nation building experiment in Afghanistan without criticizing our troops and saying that our mission is "evil." Can't I simply be allowed to say that what we're doing is misguided and bad policy?

I'm not talking about specific individual troops (like "john smith from Ohio", etc). I'm talking about the idea of Federal troops ("standing armies") in general, which is not only economically stupid, but antithetical to liberty (and even many of the founders agree with this).

[heavenlyboy34]

What the hell does it mean to support the troops? Anyone with some intellectual balls want to actually answer that for once?

Cause if it only means "i hope they don't suffer" then you should be supportive of all troops and there's no point in saying it other to just fit into the flag-waving moron crowd.

That's kind of harsh sounding in our PC era, but you're right.

[Brian4Liberty]

What the hell does it mean to support the troops? Anyone with some intellectual balls want to actually answer that for once?


My grandfather was in WWII and is still alive. I can ask him. He supports the troops and despises war. The mission comes from the civilian leaders. The troops are doing a hard job and risking their lives, ideally only for the true defense of the nation. The blame lies with the civilian leaders.

[Brett85]

I'm not talking about specific individual troops (like "john smith from Ohio", etc). I'm talking about the idea of Federal troops ("standing armies") in general, which is not only economically stupid, but antithetical to liberty (and even many of the founders agree with this).

I support closing down all of our foreign military bases and bringing our troops home, so I think we agree on that. I just object to people calling our troops "assassins" and denigrating their service. Even if you disagree with the mission you should respect and admire the fact that our troops put their lives on the line every day. Good grief, even the most far left people I know agree with this.

[RedStripe]

My grandfather was in WWII and is still alive. I can ask him. He supports the troops and despises war. The mission comes from the civilian leaders. The troops are doing a hard job and risking their lives, ideally only for the true defense of the nation. The blame lies with the civilian leaders.

Ok, but that still doesn't answer the question: what exactly does it mean to support the troops? To physically hold them up? To give them money?

Or, as I suspect, is it just a code phrase for "I'm a good, loyal, patriotic American?"

Really, it's just a way to indicate one's faith in the American religion to other believers. That's why even people who label themselves as libertarians or other "radical" philosophies still find themselves forced to say that they "support the troops" because to say otherwise is to be excommunicated - something you can't afford if you're trying to reform the church built around the religion.

[RedStripe]

Even if you disagree with the mission you should respect and admire the fact that our troops put their lives on the line every day. Good grief, even the most far left people I know agree with this.

By your logic we should "respect and admire" the fact that anti-US Islamic insurgents put their lives on the line every day. Actually, we should respect them more than the US military because the insurgents are 1) not being paid to fight a foreign occupation, 2) are putting themselves at far greater risk and against a vastly more powerful enemy, and 3) fighting against imperialism (something, according to American mythology propaganda, that Americans are supposed to admire).

Yea, the truth hurts.

[Brett85]

Ok, but that still doesn't answer the question: what exactly does it mean to support the troops? To physically hold them up? To give them money?

Or, as I suspect, is it just a code phrase for "I'm a good, loyal, patriotic American?"

Really, it's just a way to indicate one's faith in the American religion to other believers. That's why even people who label themselves as libertarians or other "radical" philosophies still find themselves forced to say that they "support the troops" because to say otherwise is to be excommunicated - something you can't afford if you're trying to reform the church built around the religion.

By supporting our troops I just mean that everybody should have a positive opinion of our military and recognize their sacrifice. All of this anti military rhetoric is the main reason I call myself a conservative rather than a libertarian. I don't want to be associated with that kind of craziness.

[Brett85]

By your logic we should "respect and admire" the fact that anti-US Islamic insurgents put their lives on the line every day. Actually, we should respect them more than the US military because the insurgents are 1) not being paid to fight a foreign occupation, 2) are putting themselves at far greater risk and against a vastly more powerful enemy, and 3) fighting against imperialism (something, according to American mythology propaganda, that Americans are supposed to admire).

Yea, the truth hurts.

Um, are you even an American?

[RedStripe]

Um, are you even an American?

1. Why would it matter?

2. Are you a Christian? Did Christ teach us to value some lives more than others based on nationality?

3. Address my point, if you can.

[RedStripe]

By supporting our troops I just mean that everybody should have a positive opinion of our military and recognize their sacrifice. All of this anti military rhetoric is the main reason I call myself a conservative rather than a libertarian. I don't want to be associated with that kind of craziness.

Um, on what basis should one have a positive opinion of "our" (tribal mentality) military?

I could see if all you read was propaganda, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're actually aware of how terrible our military has been with respect to inflicting unnecessary human suffering, wars of conquest, etc.

[Brian4Liberty]

Ok, but that still doesn't answer the question: what exactly does it mean to support the troops? To physically hold them up? To give them money?


Thanks and a pat on the back, buy 'em a beer, don't spit on them, don't call them names, things like that. Some benefits from government are appropriate, but we probably can't afford that due to the fiscal irresponsibility of our "leaders".

(Edit: I don't like the term "support" as it is used today either. It is pretty meaningless as used most of the time. Mostly it means "I agree, or I agree to let you decide for yourself. How generous.)


Um, are you even an American?

Lol! Watch out, you are going to get at the root of the disagreement! Yes, many people here do not believe in nations, many people here do believe in nations. You will not solve that disagreement. (And yes, many people on here are not Americans, which doesn't matter to them, as they don't believe in nations anyway.)

[Brett85]

1. Why would it matter?

2. Are you a Christian? Did Christ teach us to value some lives more than others based on nationality?

3. Address my point, if you can.

Because no American should be rooting for the enemy. Fortunately for you the 1st Amendment allows you to say things that border on treason.

2. Yes, and Christ didn't say anything about war. There's all kinds of examples in the Old Testament where God ordered the Israelites to basically "destroy the enemy." With that being said I still oppose the idea of endless war and nation building, and this argument is simply about having respect for our military. I'm amazed that we're even having a discussion about this.

[RedStripe]

Thanks and a pat on the back, buy 'em a beer, don't spit on them, don't call them names, things like that. Some benefits from government are appropriate, but we probably can't afford that due to the fiscal irresponsibility of our "leaders".

Look, I don't go around spitting on anyone, but there's not reason to "thank" or show any sort of special treatment to military members on account of their being members of the military. Individual people doing nice things, whether in their official or personal capacity is one thing, deserve credit. But that shouldn't apply exclusively to "our" side, and neither should the criticism where criticism is due. Such as when you are committing atrocities, killing civilians, occupying a society, participating in wars of aggression, etc.

The biggest irony is that most people who "support the troops" also claim to be Christian or to hold Christian values.

h

Lol! Watch out, you are going to get at the root of the disagreement! Yes, many people here do not believe in nations, many people here do believe in nations. You will not solve that disagreement. (And yes, many people on here are not Americans, which doesn't matter to them, as they don't believe in nations anyway.)

While it may be the case for some, for me, that isn't the "root" of the disagreement. It's not that I don't "believe" in nations - I believe that nations exist - and it's not an argument about whether nations "ought" to exist (which is usually a fairly meaningless debate to have). I'm simply stating the facts. By Traditional Conservative's logic (i.e. his reasons for "supporting the troops") the Islamic insurgents deserve the same respect.

[RedStripe]

Because no American should be rooting for the enemy. Fortunately for you the 1st Amendment allows you to say things that border on treason.

No citizen of Oceania should be rooting for Eurasia! :rolleyes:

So who are the "enemies" and what makes them so? Let's see how good you are at regurgitating the state's narrative.



2. Yes, and Christ didn't say anything about war. There's all kinds of examples in the Old Testament where God ordered the Israelites to basically "destroy the enemy." With that being said I still oppose the idea of endless war and nation building, and this argument is simply about having respect for our military.

Ever heard of this thing called turning the other cheek? Here's a hint: it isn't actually about cheek-slapping.

But never mind that. RAH RAH GO AMURRICA (TO PROVE UR A TRU AMURRICAN)



I'm amazed that we're even having a discussion about this.

lol, this is literally the most you have ever thought about this issue?

[Brett85]

No citizen of Oceania should be rooting for Eurasia! :rolleyes:

So who are the "enemies" and what makes them so? Let's see how good you are at regurgitating the state's narrative.



Ever heard of this thing called turning the other cheek? Here's a hint: it isn't actually about cheek-slapping.

But never mind that. RAH RAH GO AMURRICA (TO PROVE UR A TRU AMURRICAN)



lol, this is literally the most you have ever thought about this issue?

I believe our enemies are the ones who attacked us on 9-11. Oh wait, that only happened because Bush used remote controls to fly the planes into the towers. I forgot.

Christ was talking about what individuals should do, not nations. But I guess you don't believe in "nations" so it doesn't matter.

I don't generally have a debate on whether we should support our military, because according to Rasmussen about 97% of Americans support the military. Even the far left nuts at Media Matters never argued with me about that.

[RedStripe]

I believe our enemies are the ones who attacked us on 9-11. Oh wait, that only happened because Bush used remote controls to fly the planes into the towers. I forgot.

That's all you got? 9/11 and a sarcastic quip about it being an inside job?

Is this really the foundation of your world view? Wow.



Christ was talking about what individuals should do, not nations. But I guess you don't believe in "nations" so it doesn't matter.

Uhh, I just said that I don't believe that. But don't let that stop you from using it as an excuse to avoid a debate. I mean, if you just don't want to talk about it you should at least have the guts to just say it and move on.



I don't generally have a debate on whether we should support our military, because according to Rasmussen about 97% of Americans support the military. Even the far left nuts at Media Matters never argued with me about that.

Gee, I'm sorry no one ever told you that you were wrong. I'm sorry, it must be a painful thing to hear (hence your "Are you even an American" response). But the fact is, your very own reasons for "supporting" the troops by respecting them applies equally, if not moreso, to Islamic insurgents who are fighting foreign occupation of their lands. No doubt you would be "proud" of our troops if, God forbid, the United States were ever invaded and occupied in response for all of the terrorist attacks launched from American soil, but at least it would provide iron-clad proof of your logical duplicity of which you all but entirely unaware.

[Chieppa1]

Um, are you even an American?

Um, everything he posted is pretty much true. What is "American" to you? Blind allegiance to a flag? Or is living by the pillars of liberty, freedom and individual rights that the America was founded on?

[Chieppa1]

Because no American should be rooting for the enemy. Fortunately for you the 1st Amendment allows you to say things that border on treason.

So if you lived in England during the Revolution, and believed in small government and were against foreign aggression, our Founders would be terrorists to you anyway then? Because they were the "enemies" of the country you live in?

[speciallyblend]

ok back to topic. let us go to this rally if you can and convert neo-cons and get folks to support Liberty aka Ron Paul:)

[Chieppa1]

ok back to topic. let us go to this rally if you can and convert neo-cons and get folks to support Liberty aka Ron Paul:)

If I go to this rally, any conversation I have with a Neo-Con (especially ones that are older then me) will end up like this thread. :o Because the truth hurts.

[Brett85]

Um, everything he posted is pretty much true. What is "American" to you? Blind allegiance to a flag? Or is living by the pillars of liberty, freedom and individual rights that the America was founded on?

Justifying terrorism isn't American, and it's not something that even Ron Paul would do. He wouldn't get 1% of the vote if he took that anti American view.

[Brett85]

So if you lived in England during the Revolution, and believed in small government and were against foreign aggression, our Founders would be terrorists to you anyway then? Because they were the "enemies" of the country you live in?

Your question makes no sense at all. It's just a good reminder not to smoke crack.

[Brett85]

If I go to this rally, any conversation I have with a Neo-Con (especially ones that are older then me) will end up like this thread. :o Because the truth hurts.

By your definition of the word even Ron Paul is a "neocon." I'm so much of a "neocon" that I got kicked off of free republic for supporting Ron Paul's foreign policy positions.

[Chieppa1]

Justifying terrorism isn't American, and it's not something that even Ron Paul would do. He wouldn't get 1% of the vote if he took that anti American view.

Neither is justifying blanket hate of a religion and/or blanket bombing and invasion of places that most "Americans" can't find on a globe.

[silentshout]

Ron Paul doesn't use anti military and anti American rhetoric life yourself. I think Ron Paul would say that those who support the mission in Afghanistan have noble intentions. I like Ron Paul because he wants to reduce the size of the federal government and bring our troops home from around the world. Anyway, I thought you were cancelling your account?????

wow. Just, wow.

[Brett85]

Neither is justifying blanket hate of a religion and/or blanket bombing and invasion of places that most "Americans" can't find on a globe.

When did I say that? My whole argument has simply been that our troops our heroes and we should honor them dispite disagreeing with the mission that our leaders have chosen for them. Any decent American wouldn't find that controversial.

[Brett85]

wow. Just, wow.

Yeah. Ron Paul still has some Pro America supporters left.

[silentshout]

By supporting our troops I just mean that everybody should have a positive opinion of our military and recognize their sacrifice. All of this anti military rhetoric is the main reason I call myself a conservative rather than a libertarian. I don't want to be associated with that kind of craziness.

Well, not everybody does. Sorry. As for me, I would never go to a rally to "support" the troops (whatever that means) and then talk about religion..kind of creepy IMO to combine the two, but that's just me.

As for my views, sure, I support the troops in that I want them to come home to their families right away.

[Chieppa1]

When did I say that? My whole argument has simply been that our troops our heroes and we should honor them dispite disagreeing with the mission that our leaders have chosen for them. Any decent American wouldn't find that controversial.

When some of those heroes sign back up for another tour so they can "kill more brown people", they lose their "hero" status. Over half of the men in my graduating class joined up and followed the same path. Sorry if I don't support their new found blood lust.

[Brett85]

Well, not everybody does. Sorry. As for me, I would never go to a rally to "support" the troops (whatever that means) and then talk about religion..kind of creepy IMO to combine the two, but that's just me.

As for my views, sure, I support the troops in that I want them to come home to their families right away.

I would go to a rally to honor the sacrifice that our troops have made. That has nothing to do with supporting the mission. The fascinating thing about all of this is that I've clearly stated that I want to bring our troops home ASAP, and we're still having this huge argument simply over whether our troops are honorable or not.

[silentshout]

Yeah. Ron Paul still has some Pro America supporters left.

what does that even mean?

[Brett85]

When some of those heroes sign back up for another tour so they can "kill more brown people", they lose their "hero" status. Over half of the men in my graduating class joined up and followed the same path. Sorry if I don't support their new found blood lust.

They feel that they have a calling to serve their country. It has nothing to do with killing "brown people." That's insane and offensive.

[Brett85]

what does that even mean?

It means that I don't compare our troops to terrorists and even try to justify attacks against them. Again, when has Ron Paul ever spouted that kind of nonsense?

[speciallyblend]

I would go to a rally to honor the sacrifice that our troops have made. That has nothing to do with supporting the mission. The fascinating thing about all of this is that I've clearly stated that I want to bring our troops home ASAP, and we're still having this huge argument simply over whether our troops are honorable or not.


ok safety break;) i wonder if obama/cheney will share a 2012 ticket, Bring our Troops Home!! never say never;) sarcasm:)

[Chieppa1]

They feel that they have a calling to serve their country. It has nothing to do with killing "brown people." That's insane and offensive.

And that's what THEY say. Sorry, but every American troop is not a pillar of all things good. We bitch about how police do some awful shit on their power trips. Do we all get up in arms when someone doesn't "support our police"?

Now, I blame it on their civilian leaders that send these guys/gals over there. So, I support the people who become troops, by wanted them to stay home and not become brainwashed, killing machines off putting themselves (and our national security) in danger just to advance an agenda.

[Brett85]

And that's what THEY say. Sorry, but every American troop is not a pillar of all things good. We bitch about how police do some awful shit on their power trips. Do we all get up in arms when someone doesn't "support our police"?

Now, I blame it on their civilian leaders that send these guys/gals over there. So, I support the people who become troops, by wanted them to stay home and not become brainwashed, killing machines off putting themselves (and our national security) in danger just to advance an agenda.

There's always a few rotten apples in the bunch, but I still think that most of our troops are patriotic Americans who just want to serve our country. We just disagree.

[Chieppa1]

I just think to be a hero, you have to be defending life, liberty or property. Not take it. NO MATTER WHO IS DOING IT.

[Brett85]

I just think to be a hero, you have to be defending life, liberty or property. Not take it. NO MATTER WHO IS DOING IT.

Let's both just agree that we should bring all of our troops home and use our troops to defend our own country. We agree on that point.

[RedStripe]

My whole argument has simply been that our troops our heroes.... Any decent American wouldn't find that controversial.

You've yet to explain what makes them heroes.

And lol @ "any decent American" - what's a decent American? What the fuck does that even mean?

[Brett85]

You've yet to explain what makes them heroes.

And lol @ "any decent American" - what's a decent American? What the fuck does that even mean?

They're heroes because they fight to give you the freedom to say the stupid things that you say.

[RedStripe]

They're heroes because they fight to give you the freedom to say the stupid things that you say.

How do the people in the military go about doing that? In other words, I'm asking you to actually provide some evidence to support that enormous pile of BS.

[libertybrewcity]

Bring Ron Paul signs.

[Brett85]

How do the people in the military go about doing that? In other words, I'm asking you to actually provide some evidence to support that enormous pile of BS.

If you had your way the terrorists would've simply taken over our country after 9-11. Fortunately, people like Ron Paul and myself supported sending our troops into Afghanistan to secure our liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, Ron Paul and I both oppose the current nation building experiment in Afghanistan which has nothing to do with our national defense.

[LibertyVox]

If you had your way the terrorists would've simply taken over our country after 9-11. Fortunately, people like Ron Paul and myself supported sending our troops into Afghanistan to secure our liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, Ron Paul and I both oppose the current nation building experiment in Afghanistan which has nothing to do with our national defense.

oh jeez :rolleyes:

[speciallyblend]

If you had your way the terrorists would've simply taken over our country after 9-11. Fortunately, people like Ron Paul and myself supported sending our troops into Afghanistan to secure our liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, Ron Paul and I both oppose the current nation building experiment in Afghanistan which has nothing to do with our national defense.

please explain how the terrorists would take over our country flying a plane into a building. it is a tactic not an invasion! I fear our own government over terrorists taking over our country!!

[Brett85]

please explain how the terrorists would take over our country flying a plane into a building. it is a tactic not an invasion! I fear our own government over terrorists taking over our country!!

I'm saying that they could take over our country only if we had no military and no defense like some of the anarchists here want. It wouldn't be that hard for them to hold a large group of people hostage and demand a huge ransom like they've done elsewhere.

[RPgrassrootsactivist]

Anyone who is going to this rally, please consider handing out reading material: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2861112&postcount=6

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm saying that they could take over our country only if we had no military and no defense like some of the anarchists here want. It wouldn't be that hard for them to hold a large group of people hostage and demand a huge ransom like they've done elsewhere.

You confuse "military" with "defense". There is a HUGE difference, and even the scammer Federalists knew it. (Militaries are for warfare abroad-which is why Americans traditionally distrust them-militias are for defense domestically)

[RedStripe]

If you had your way the terrorists would've simply taken over our country after 9-11.

Hahaha, what are you smoking man? Please elaborate for more funnies.

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul was in the Military (U.S. Air Force).

[low preference guy]

Ron Paul was in the Military (U.S. Air Force).

drafted.

[Lord Xar]

drafted.

.... and that means what?

Much of Ron's Literature and MUCH of our grassroots literature during the 2008 campaign had many references to his service - in a positive light.

I can't wait to see how useful those like you, redstripe etc.. will be during Ron's 2012 bid.

[low preference guy]

.... and that means what?

Much of Ron's Literature and MUCH of our grassroots literature during the 2008 campaign had many references to his service - in a positive light.

I can't wait to see how useful those like you, redstripe etc.. will be during Ron's 2012 bid.

i am not saying it means anything positive or negative, i just pointed out his statement was incomplete. in general it's better to have all the important information, and whether someone was drafted to the military is pretty relevant.

you shouldn't assume crazy things about people. i can't wait to see how useless the likes of you and WaltM will be for Ron Paul 2012.

[Brett85]

Hahaha, what are you smoking man? Please elaborate for more funnies.

It means that you wouldn't have even responded to the attack on 9-11. You would have just sat back and said, "oh well, we deserved it." But Ron Paul and I supported going into Afghanistan to defend our country and take out those who were behind the planning of 9-11.

[parocks]

By your definition of the word even Ron Paul is a "neocon." I'm so much of a "neocon" that I got kicked off of free republic for supporting Ron Paul's foreign policy positions.

I'm still there, and I'm there defending Ron Paul.

Ron Paul needs freepers to win.

You have some understanding of the typical, standard, average Conservative at FR - pretty much the standard conservative Republican.

The people you are arguing with have no clue. RP should run fast and hard away from any discussion of foreign policy. The kind of voters he gets from being antiwar piss off twice as many standard conservatives - the voters he needs in a Republican Primary.

Ron Paul can be trusted to try to shrink the federal government if he's President.
Shrink the Federal Government is the number 1 priority of the Tea Party. The other candidates can't be trusted to shrink the government. Some are unproven, others have a record of big government.

[RedStripe]

It means that you wouldn't have even responded to the attack on 9-11. You would have just sat back and said, "oh well, we deserved it." But Ron Paul and I supported going into Afghanistan to defend our country and take out those who were behind the planning of 9-11.

No, I've heard that before.

I want to know more about your delusional scenarios in which the "enemies" take over America.

[Brett85]

No, I've heard that before.

I want to know more about your delusional scenarios in which the "enemies" take over America.

I don't think I need to go scenario by scenario. It's simply obvious that if we had no defense, no military, and never responded to attacks we wouldn't even have a country. We would be living under the rule of another country or group of people. There isn't really any point of having this ridiculous discussion. I'm a Ron Paul supporter who wants to bring our troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan, and all of the other countries we're in around the world. The fact that I'm not some anti military anarchist doesn't make me a "neocon" or a "statist."

[Brett85]

I'm still there, and I'm there defending Ron Paul.

Ron Paul needs freepers to win.

You have some understanding of the typical, standard, average Conservative at FR - pretty much the standard conservative Republican.

The people you are arguing with have no clue. RP should run fast and hard away from any discussion of foreign policy. The kind of voters he gets from being antiwar piss off twice as many standard conservatives - the voters he needs in a Republican Primary.

Ron Paul can be trusted to try to shrink the federal government if he's President.
Shrink the Federal Government is the number 1 priority of the Tea Party. The other candidates can't be trusted to shrink the government. Some are unproven, others have a record of big government.

I think my first post there was a post defending Ron Paul during the heat of the 2008 Republican primary when Ron Paul made his infamous remark to Guliani. I probably should have commented on other topics and politicians before I started defending Ron Paul's foreign policy views.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, my parents are going. Kind of disappointed. I thought I had opened their eyes a little more then that. Beck, Palin...And the brochure they had on it had Mr. Lincoln on it. I mean, who's more small government then him....:rolleyes:

How did your parents like it?

[Brian4Liberty]

Let us know how it went!

From Beck's description of this on his radio show, the rally is going to be somewhere between an AA meeting and an evangelical revival. To really boil it all down, he has decided that only God can change the country. Everybody will do the Ghost Dance, and all evil will be swept away... :rolleyes:

And did they do the Ghost Dance? ;)

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - What We Saw at the Glenn Beck Rally in DC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CY5aFvRe2E)

[libertybrewcity]

I'm still there, and I'm there defending Ron Paul.

Ron Paul needs freepers to win.

You have some understanding of the typical, standard, average Conservative at FR - pretty much the standard conservative Republican.

The people you are arguing with have no clue. RP should run fast and hard away from any discussion of foreign policy. The kind of voters he gets from being antiwar piss off twice as many standard conservatives - the voters he needs in a Republican Primary.

Ron Paul can be trusted to try to shrink the federal government if he's President.
Shrink the Federal Government is the number 1 priority of the Tea Party. The other candidates can't be trusted to shrink the government. Some are unproven, others have a record of big government.

RP is getting hammered here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2579689/posts