I think you misunderstand my position. I’m not a hardcore Zionist who sees gentiles as inferior.
Well, he’s right I guess. There are statists (like me) and non-statists (like you guys). But then among statists, there is a tremendous amount of variation. I’m trying to say that I’m on the low end of the statist spectrum.
It was more of a joke really. Needless to say, it failed.
My understanding is based on what you said about Ron Paul. I only know of Ron Paul opposing the American people being forced by the U.S. government to pay their wealth to the state of Israel.
I’m not condoning it, but isn’t the US-sponsored aid to Israel simply a spin-cycle for that aid to fund the military-industrial complex back home?
Maybe so, but they don’t have to give it to Israel in particular.
So do you have somebody else in mind? Should we now be concerned about the preferences of those who are in control of the looted money?
I disagree. I think there is a distinction between Neocons and Progressives [ pro or anti establishment ] when it comes to foreign policy. Such a distinction establishes that there can be a lesser evil. Perhaps not by much but I think Dr. Rockwell’s comment was something along the lines of being off hand, not particularly induced toward political tactics. Like I said its good that they were against the war [ Ok Kennedy’s reasons are reprehensible but at the very least he didn’t vote to extend war ] but that doesn’t mean we can roast marshmellows with these people. I’m trying to walk the tight rope between utopianism and opportunism. We don’t want to become so utopian as to not care what anyone who doesn’t agree with us does nor do we want to become so opportunistic that we jump in bed with the slightest sign of agreement. It seems our disagree is really a difference of preference concerning where to draw the line.
that tainted everything else you said and didn’t provide a clear picture.
evil is evil.
Evil is evil but yet there are 9 circles of hell for a reason.
“of hell” and no where else.
Establishing that there is a distinction establishes nothing. There is a distinction between an axe murderer and a chainsaw murderer, without any of them being a lesser evil. That there “can be a lesser evil” doesn`t mean that there is one.
You are going to have to come up with better examples than the voting record of the cruise missile liberals when they were out of power. The only examples that can be valid is when they were in power.
John Bolton opposed a couple of Clinton`s wars. By your logic that makes him a lesser evil. Democrats opposing Republican wars are no more common than Republicans opposing Democrat wars.
That is a false analogy. This isn’t like an axe murder and a chainsaw murder. This is like…well someone who advocated a war and someone who didn’t.
Well I think Barbara Boxer is still in power [ sadly ] and Kennedy only died recently.
In the case of war during the Clinton years, yes. I never claimed these people are static or consistent.
??
During the Bush years they were in the opposition and therefore out of power. That is what I meant.
Anyhow how are they the lesser evil? And compared to whom? They have their own wars that they helped bring about when they were in power. Boxer is working for a war with Sudan right now. It is not that they want less war, it is just that they want different war. How is that a lesser evil? Is there something less evil about killing people in Sudan as opposed to in some other place?
No it is not. This is like someone who killed Mr.X for looking at him funny compared to someone else who killed Mr.Y so he could bragg about it to his friends.
that’s what I initially said, “??”: