The Neocon Power Grab is Crumbling

Are you saying that Reagan was a neocon? I thought Ken made it very clear that anyone who even implies that ought to be ashamed and that it was in no way true.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]I don't consider Reagan to be a neocon, but I do as the deffinition says believe that neocons like Donald Rumsfeld, George H. W. Bush, and others "influed U.S. foreign policy" during the Reagan administration. I believe that during Reagans final term the neocons started to take over the GOP, and have controled it ever since.

 

Why does it matter to the CP? The CP does not support supply-side economics if it runs deficits. The CP does not support helping Israel with foreign aid. By logic, if the war in Iraq is illegal--which the CP platform says that it is--then the Reagan wars in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, and Grenada must be illegal also by CP logic.

By the way, one CP leaner has already posted that Nicaragua was illegal.

 

The last legal constitutionaly declared war was World War II.

(I need to get to bed, vacation starts tomorrow, I have a 10 hour drive. Goodnight All!!)

 

Are you saying that Reagan was a neocon? I thought Ken made it very clear that anyone who even implies that ought to be ashamed and that it was in no way true.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]I don't consider Reagan to be a neocon, but I do as the deffinition says believe that neocons like Donald Rumsfeld, George H. W. Bush, and others "influed U.S. foreign policy" during the Reagan administration. I believe that during Reagans final term the neocons started to take over the GOP, and have controled it ever since. </font>[/QUOTE]Who implemented those policies? It was Reagan. He certainly could have said no if he wanted to. He was the president, not them.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I don't care whether Ronald Reagan was a neocon or not.

I don't care what Michael Medved thinks.

In fact, I really son't even care what the definition of "neocon" is.

I love America. I love her heritage and constitution.

I think that conservative fiscal policy, moral government within lawful constitutional bounds, and a non-interventionist foreign policy are the best things for our nation.

Therefore, I repudiate most of what those called "neocons" (actually just liberals posing as conservatives to leech political power from suckers who support them) promote.

 

In fact, I really son't even care what the definition of "neocon" is.

"neocons" (actually just liberals posing as conservatives to leech political power from suckers who support them)


If you don't care what the definition is, why then do you give your own negative definition at the end of your post?

As for Michael Medved, do you care what any Jew thinks about slander against Jews?

 

CMG, I try to base my opinions on objective ideas, rather than to attempt to positioin myself in relation to others who I think are right or wron.

To answer your question specifically, I think slander against Jews is sinful and wrong. I base that on the teachings in the Bible, therefore what someone else thinks, Jewish or not, is not the issue for me.

As for Michael Medved, I think he has good insight into the entertainment industry but is otherwise shallow and superficial.

 

You see. This is one of the major problems I have with the CP. Thank you for stating it more clearly than I ever have before. You elevate the Constitution above morality. To me, the Bible is above the Constitution, and therefore, the morality of the Bible should always be above the rule of law in the Constitution. The Constitution is not the Word of God. The Bible is. The Bible should be our ultimate standard for truth and morality. What if something is morally Biblical, but was unconstitutional, such as helping your neighbor during their time of need? Would you cling to the Constitution or the Biblical morality of the Good Samaritan and the parables of the sheep and the goats?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Michael Medved is also a historian and an expert on American history. He has written extensively. He also became a Republican after working for Congressman Ron Dellums (you are too young to remember him--a leftist African-American) after which, like Reagan, he realized that the Democrat Party had moved on to the left, abandoning mainstream Americans and therefore Medved moved into the GOP, where many Jews voted before 1932.

He is an expert not only in the culture and hollywood but also in history and politics. He does a radio talk show weekdays. He is tough-minded and well-informed on a wide range of issues.

It would be wrong to underestimate him. He probably knows more about American history than most gentiles.

 

You see. This is one of the major problems I have with the CP. Thank you for stating it more clearly than I ever have before. You elevate the Constitution above morality. To me, the Bible is above the Constitution, and therefore, the morality of the Bible should always be above the rule of law in the Constitution. The Constitution is not the Word of God. The Bible is. The Bible should be our ultimate standard for truth and morality. What if something is morally Biblical, but was unconstitutional, such as helping your neighbor during their time of need? Would you cling to the Constitution or the Biblical morality of the Good Samaritan and the parables of the sheep and the goats?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Joseph, I suggest that you have it backwards.

The CP most certainly gives more attention to Biblical authority than your party by a long shot.

I did not intend to say that the Constitution is above morality. In fact, I don't see that in my statement, only in your "interpretation" of what I said. I stated it that way because whenever I suggest Godly principles in government, many here (you?) jump all over it by reminding me that America is not a "theocracy". So I clarified that godliness should be promoted within the existing consitutinoal framework of our nation. That is, by the way, entirely possible and consistent.

 

Please show me the last time I opposed a theocracy. as a matter of fact, I even started a thread not too long back asking why people were against a theocracy. I believe I didn't recieve too many responses.

You may not have consciously meant to put the Bible above morality, but when you said your quoted statement above, that is certainly the way it came across. Would you like to re-word your statement? Are there times when the USA should do what is right and moral regardless of what the Constitution says because it is the right thing to do? Or is morality subject to the writings of the Constitution?

Joseph Botwinick

 

If there is any doubt as to what I meant I have clarified it.

As to your position of theocracy, I now remember what you have posted and stand corrected with apology.