During the 2008 election, I battled it out with the neo-con’s on Michelle Malkin’s site. The moment I mentioned anything about the war, they immediately tried to paint me as a democrat (of course they can’t do that any longer).

I learned that before making comments on these types of neo-conservative sites, I need to write a disclaimer for each reply. The moment I mentioned Ron Paul’s name, the same disclaimer had to be expanded to include; “I’m not a conspiracy nut, don’t wear a tin foil hat, and I’m not a racist, let’s debate the issues.”

With that said, I weeded out 95% of the responders. The other 5% and I had good “discussions” with. Which leads me to the topic of this post; how to approach the neo-cons circa 2010.

Since facebook is more prevalent than it was in 2008, this is a good place to have these types of discussions. The importance here is to keep it as a discussion, and not an argument. Human emotion takes control of us sometimes and a simple reply of malice intent can ruin the whole effort to convert to your point of view.

It is not easy to enlighten some of the neo-cons. I consider the following facebook conversation (see below) with a friend of mine, to be a perfect example. Not too many people reply to his constant, pro-Republican, pro-war, pro-Israel posts. He knows where I stand on things because I do reply. While he tries to spin my comments into a mocking of myself (I’m sure if he were in charge, I would have been accused of being a heretic and burned at the stake if in another era), I try to keep on track and make my points with solid facts. Because of our friendship, I don’t reply to ALL his posts…but pick and choose.

I haven’t won him over, but with some of these neo-conservative types, it won’t be possible to do so. But the important thing is, all of his 100 or so friends are reading what he and I are writing. And that I believe is a good way to win people over…without ever meeting them.

If I choose to make him look like a fool, which I could easily do, it is I who looks like the fool to all HIS friends.

This is the message I’d like to convey moving forward. Keep your cool and have a good discussion. Keep the friendship…and know others are watching (also, when they make a comment like “I’m done,” which has happened with a couple of these people I have spoken with, take it as a silent victory, and don’t gloat!).

Here was my latest conversation – he already knows I’m a Ron Paul supporter from prior conversations – and so do his friends (last names withheld):

Jim (first post):
New UK Prime Minister David Cameron gets it: succeed in Afghanistan, secure economic growth and fight protectionism. Any chance we can trade Obama for Mr. Cameron? We will likely need to throw in some cash and a player to be named later.

Doug:
Succeed in Afghanistan while Rome burns?

Jim:
Isolationism is not a solution.

Doug:
At a cost of over $1 Trillion since the war began, our politicians choose non-declared war interventionism against no country, but a group (al-qaeda). The Russians tried fighting this group and it bankrupted their country. At some point we will walk away from these wars and some in power will claim victory. The question is, will it be before or after said bankruptcy that is hurried along by the Obama administrations spending spree (including increasing the presence of the troops in Afghanistan). Hey…that’s something you and Obama do agree on! lol
Time will tell Jim…

From a Christian standpoint…and the thesis of my second book, I will state the case against the wars despite Billy Kristol’s (not Billy Crystal to anyone reading this) best efforts. The same goes for Warlord Sean Hannity.

Isolationism and non-interventionism are two separate things. I’m all for trading with “all” neighbors…we could use some of them buying our stuff to help out GDP!

Jim
Islamic extremists have declared WWIII. We can ignore them and continue to pay the consequences, or stick our head in the sand because they are an untraditional enemy without defined borders. Losing this war will cost exponentially more in dollars and lives than the cost of fighting back. Semantics aside, your “non-intervention” strategy is a loser on every level.

Doug:
Moving stuff into storage now Jim…obviously we see things differently. But you already know that. Will reply later…

Doug:
Islamic extremism is today what communism was in decades past. The elite always need a cause to “defeat” in order to keep their well funded military industrial complex well oiled (if you get my drift).

We defeated communism without war. All “they” want is the reasoning and people like Billy Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity from the right and all the folks from the left who forgot what Obama’s campaign promises were are just as guilty.

Be careful what you wish for: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/nick-cle…

Jim:
So your position is that Islamic extremists are the victims of America’s elites? Suicide bombers, terrorist training camps, exploitation of women, 9/11…perpetrated by a conspiracy of Dick Cheney and his ilk…and Sharia Law is as harmless as Communism. Okay, I’m sold.

Doug:
As far as Islamic extremist go, if America wanted to, they would have gone after the 17 out of 19 terrorists who were from Saudi Arabia, part of the most radical Islamic group in the world, the Wahabbis. But instead, Bush took the war to Iraq? This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s fact.
What neoconservatives want to do is take the war everywhere to fight an enemy that is fueled further by the innocent victims seeking revenge (read the book “Blowback” to understand this). They should also study just war theory, especially those who call themselves Christian.

It’s as if these folks never played the game of Risk. Meanwhile, China, if they wanted to, will just wait for America to implode. And implode we will Jim. The right will blame Obama. The left won’t have a leg to stand on. Both the right and the left are complicit. When they come to require the youth to fight their bloody wars, that will be the last straw. The youth won’t go for it. Meanwhile, the police state grows, TSA lackies frisk 12 year old girls and Homeland Security lets gang members cross the borders by the hundreds every day. Don’t you think our priorities are a little ass backwards?

“The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.” Sun Tzu

Jim:
The 9/11 terrorists and many others are Saudis, but train in Afgan, Sudanese and Somali camps. Bush’s recognition of the Islamic threat and vision was soundly documented in his National Security Strategy documents of 2002 and 2006, and his Iraq strategy was endorsed by 17 mostly-unanimous UN resolutions over three years. Unfortunately it helps to be right AND execute well. Either way, your NeoCon conspiracy theories (and lingo) are straight out of 1996 and your isolationist solutions date back to 1916, though your extremist appeasement leanings smack of Obama 2010. I am an optimist and I trust the American people to swing the pendulum back to common sense (vs. PC), economic growth (vs. wealth redistribution) and the principles outlined by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. It’s not rocket science, it is not a conspiracy and the U.S. will not “implode” (whatever that means). Agree to disagree. I’m done.

Doug:
It’s ok Jim… I’ll let my book do the talking… But the wars were not “declared” per the Constitution. Have a good one…

(I could have easily addressed the issues of his last post, but chose to take up the battle, erm, discussion, at a later time, respecting the fact that it is his facebook page I’m commenting on).

Share your thoughts and tactics…would love to hear them…

Related posts:

1. Conversations With A Neo-Conservative From A Christian Perspective

Below is the response from my local house rep. Typical politician double speak…”I’m against it but I voted for it…”

Senator Feinstein voted for it and replied to my letter of protest. Senator Boxer voted for it and never replied.

Racetrack improvements, $100 million, movie industry $500 million and $2 million for wooden arrows are part of the bill? Are you kidding me?

All the pork thrown into this bill has got to wake America up to what is really happening with our elected officials. I swear….if it doesn’t, then Americans deserve what they get.

You can only blame ignorance for so long…pretty soon you crossover into the realm of stupidity.

If anyone votes in November for any of those that voted “yes” for this bill, they have crossed over. If this bill was really for helping the economy, then why did the stock market go down 150 points?

The ship is sinking folks… Make your vote count in November. Shove these losers that voted yes out the door.

FYI, Obama and McCain voted “yes” for the bailout bill. A vote for either of them means you approve of this bailout.

Doug Eberhardt

www.youcanmakeadifference.org

From my House rep Mike Thompson:

Dear Doug:

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act passed by the House today is not much better than the one we rejected on Monday. While the increase in FDIC protection is an important improvement, more market reforms are still needed. The reality is that the credit market is locked up and that is hurting Americans. It was very evident that if the House failed to act the consequences would shake the foundations of our economy.

From the time that the Bush Administration first asked for this rescue package, I argued that if taxpayers were being asked to pay up, then we needed regulatory reform at the same time. But this week, the precarious state of our economy showed that we needed to act quickly, and that getting comprehensive regulatory reform would take time, a luxury we did not have. In my many conversations with constituents and economists, it became clear to me that this crisis is not going to just affect those on Wall Street, but folks on every street across our district and around the country.

You don’t have to look any further than today’s unemployment numbers to see why we have voted to act now. The country lost more jobs in September than any month in the last five years. Unemployment in California stands at 7.7 percent, the highest it has been in 12 years. A major reason is that our financial system has stopped functioning and banks are not extending credit to employers. I have talked with individuals and business owners across the district who say that the tightening of the credit market has already affected their ability to maintain operations or to expand their businesses.

Within the last two weeks, the Arcata Community Recycling Center has seen their interest payments balloon to four times their normal rate. Standard Structures in Windsor was about to finalize a $10 million order from a Texas company until they got word this week that the project was stalled because of the credit crisis. There are fifty jobs tied to that one contract. Many more of our small businesses will be forced to lay off workers or wait on hiring new workers if they don’t have access to credit.

Governor Schwarzenegger and Treasurer Bill Lockyer announced this week that California has four weeks of cash flow, and if the markets are not restored, the state will be unable to pay its bills. It’s only a matter of time before cities and counties will be forced to pass along these budget shortfalls by reducing public services. From public health and safety workers, to road crews and garbage pickup, the government services that we rely on will be disrupted and these jobs will go on the chopping block.

I can assure you I still disagree with this bill and I remain committed to enactment of concrete market reforms that address the underlying problems that lead to this crisis. To that end, I’ve received a direct commitment from Speaker Pelosi that she too will work to identify and address the problems that led us to this point. The House will immediately begin holding hearings on the regulatory shortcomings in our financial system, so that come January we will be ready to craft legislation that addresses the issues I’ve raised and others that will be uncovered. Congressman Barney Frank, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, has promised me that his committee will make the reforms I advocated for a top priority. And I’ve received a personal commitment from Senator Obama that if he’s elected President he too will work for these important market reforms. In January, we will be well positioned to pass important legislation that will close the loopholes and tighten up regulations in the financial services sector.

Today I voted for this legislation because it was clear to me that we must take immediate action to restore a measure of confidence in the economy. This isn’t the end of our problems nor is it the last of the legislation. Like everyone else, I’m outraged that taxpayers have been tapped to cover the greed and excesses of the financial marketplace, and I’m outraged that as taxpayers we have been asked to cover for the failure of Wall Street regulators. But when forced to choose between doing nothing and passing this bill, I voted for what I believe is best for our country and our district, and voted to pass this legislation. We face a tough road ahead, but hopefully by unfreezing the credit markets, Americans can get back to growing their businesses and growing our economy.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this important issue. I appreciate your conviction on this matter and have valued your continued dialogue.

Sincerely,

MIKE THOMPSON
Member of Congress
[link edited for length]

Related posts:

1. Which Congressmen Voted to Give IMF $100 Billion? Vote Them Out!
2. America’s Infrastructure In 2009: Grade “F”
3. Congress Gives IMF Your Tax Dollars to Bailout Greece