Originally posted by Fishermage Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by Fishermage
Obviously you know what you have stepped in. Caught you, didn't I?
Yep. A big pile of steaming.. evasion. Keep going, you're about as close to Godwin's Law as you can get.
I am only using the definition and information that YOU provided. Now you are the one doing the evading.
You know what's nice?
How you just admitted there that you were evading. But that's not exactly a newsflash. Anyone reading this thread knew that. Evasion and religion baiting. De facto admissions of lost debates.
Obviously you know what you have stepped in. Caught you, didn't I?
Yep. A big pile of steaming.. evasion. Keep going, you're about as close to Godwin's Law as you can get.
I am only using the definition and information that YOU provided. Now you are the one doing the evading.
You know what's nice?
How you just admitted there that you were evading. But that's not exactly a newsflash. Anyone reading this thread knew that. Evasion and religion baiting. De facto admissions of lost debates.
I've admitted nothing -- perhaps a poor word choice. I am being open and direct. I have asked you for a definition -- you provided me with several, so I asked you WHICH ONE you are using. You are the only one here who is being evading. Sorry I was unclear.
YOU provided the wiki article popinjay, which states exactly what I am saying -- the meaning of the word used to mean someone who was a liberal when they were young, anf shifted conservative as they grew more mature.
The article then goes on to note the problem with the shifting meaning, and how it is now being used as an antiseitic slur. That came from YOUR SOURCE, popinjay.
The only one evading is you. I have nothing to evade. I don't like the word -- it is an epithet and as such is useless in civil discourse.
I am baiting nothing, but I do want to kow what YOU mean. Yet you keep evading.
If they are losers, then why do the Republicans keep QQing and defecting? Only about 21% of Americans even like Republicans because of their past antics and all the hate they spewed up in the last six months.
There's a reason Election Night was over @ 9pm East Coast time. No one wanted to vote for neoconservative nonsense anymore. A good chunk are so ashamed now, they are all of a sudden "Independant" so that they can pretend to be critical of Democrats without showing their bloomers.
I'm not particularly thrilled Democrats have a lot of power, but after eight years of nonsense and shenanigans involving scandals, spending and war.. I'm glad it's anyone but Republicans and neocons running things with a majority.
Knowing your assault rifles will be going "bye-bye" within 4 years is also a plus.
There's two definitions of victory in politics. One is winning elections, which the democrats have done in the last two election cycles, no question. The other definition is results. Now I'm sure we are going to disagree on this, but from my perspective, the Democrats have already lost the current battle. They lost it when they rammed through the most outrageous government spending in the history of the United States, with the prospect of more to come. They did it for short term gain, but in the end, it's going to lead to long term disaster. There's simply a lag time for this flood of money into the economy to start having a negatvie effect.
But going back to Colson, if you consider signing a letter that someone else drafted as being politically active, then I guess in your eyes, he has been involved in politics. I regard being politically active as being involved in policy making, receiving compensation for political input or lobbying, etc. Not signing a letter.
I don't know what the last 4 pages have been about, but I just want to say again how happy I am going to be seeing the republicans realize that they can no longer get up and read out of a phonebook because they don't like spending money to help people lower than themselves.
If they are losers, then why do the Republicans keep QQing and defecting? Only about 21% of Americans even like Republicans because of their past antics and all the hate they spewed up in the last six months.
There's a reason Election Night was over @ 9pm East Coast time. No one wanted to vote for neoconservative nonsense anymore. A good chunk are so ashamed now, they are all of a sudden "Independant" so that they can pretend to be critical of Democrats without showing their bloomers.
I'm not particularly thrilled Democrats have a lot of power, but after eight years of nonsense and shenanigans involving scandals, spending and war.. I'm glad it's anyone but Republicans and neocons running things with a majority.
Knowing your assault rifles will be going "bye-bye" within 4 years is also a plus.
There's two definitions of victory in politics. One is winning elections, which the democrats have done in the last two election cycles, no question. The other definition is results. Now I'm sure we are going to disagree on this, but from my perspective, the Democrats have already lost the current battle. They lost it when they rammed through the most outrageous government spending in the history of the United States, with the prospect of more to come. They did it for short term game, but in the end, it's going to lead to long term disaster. There's simply a lag time for this flood of money into the economy to start having a negatvie effect.
What happens when more than 50% of Americans believe that a party has achieved great results while in office?
There's two definitions of victory in politics. One is winning elections, which the democrats have done in the last two election cycles, no question. The other definition is results. Now I'm sure we are going to disagree on this, but from my perspective, the Democrats have already lost the current battle. They lost it when they rammed through the most outrageous government spending in the history of the United States, with the prospect of more to come. They did it for short term game, but in the end, it's going to lead to long term disaster. There's simply a lag time for this flood of money into the economy to start having a negatvie effect.
What happens when more than 50% of Americans believe that a party has achieved great results while in office?
Or does their opinion not count?
I call it a pyschological effect. So many people think Obama is hip and cool (especially in the media) and even though nothing's improved yet, people apparently perceive that they have, or will soon. It's just like what happened when FDR was President. He spent massive amounts of taxpayer money with little or no effect, but people perceived that he was doing something, which made him popular.
I just think it means Jewish conservative. It's part of the new antisemitism so prevalent on the left these days. I see nothing but an epithet.
It certainly seems to have no meaning other than Jews who are conservative.
You and I had this discussion months ago.
The definition is there, and has been presented to you numerous times.
New antisemitism? More proof that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I am merely using the evidence that popinjay provided. HE provided that definition, not me.
Please, what does it mean? If it has been presented numerous times, you ought to be able to do it easily. Go ahead. Define it, then distnguish it from a regular conservative. Then provide examples of people who are conservatives but NOT neo-cons, and explain the differentiation.
None of the sources popinjay quotes can do that consistently. let us see if you can. I know, I don't know what I am talking about here. I don't know what YOU are talking about, since you and popinjay refuse to define it clearly.
Illuminate me, educate me, instead of your usual trolling -- try and ADD to the discussion.
Well, it's been defined for you about 37 times, but I'll go ahead.
Neoconservatives generally advocate expanding U.S. military power globally, unilateralism, and pre-emptive military action. The neoconservative branch of the overall conservative movement (the tax cuts for the rich, etc.) essentially hijacked the party during the Bush "administration."
NOTABLE NEOCONSERVATIVES: Dick Cheney, George W. Bush (although I'm not really sure how much he qualifies), Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld.
NOTABLE CONSERVATIVES WHO DO NOT GENERALLY FALL INTO THE NEOCONSERVATIVE MOLD: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Pat Buchanan.
Now, the fact that the Republican Party overwhelmingly supported the Iraq War does not make all conservatives "neoconservatives" -- let's not forget that the war was sold to all of us based on false pretenses. Siding with the neoconservatives who were essentially running the Justice Department, the State Department, the DOD and the rest of the Bush cabinet was, for the vast majority of the Republican Party, politically expedient.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
I've admitted nothing -- perhaps a poor word choice. I am being open and direct. I have asked you for a definition -- you provided me with several, so I asked you WHICH ONE you are using. You are the only one here who is being evading. Sorry I was unclear. What have I evaded?
One last time? You barely even mention Irving Kristol's name. That's denial and disrepectful.
He is undisputedly the originator of the American Neoconservative movement. That movement had to deal with economic issues as well as national and social issues in Kristol's day. Kristol many times in his own writings was very vocal about the treatment and condition of Jews in this country by its citizens/government. He was even part of a Trotskyist sect. I know you already know who those guys are, right? Trotsky=Marxist. They are from the brush that you and other posters keep trying to paint Obama with. Marxist, socialist, communist. So the entire modern day Republican neoconservative movement was founded by a Jew who was a Marxist. That is an undeniable, HISTORICAL fact. Evade it if you wish. It wasn't founded by some bible-totin' Christian Republican. It was spawned from Marxist thought.
He sought to make inroads with people in the United States government who were friendly towards Israeli concerns, as well as institute changes in the way American politics were conducted. He thought this-
Irving Kristol wrote:
While propounding the virtues of supply-side economics as the basis for the economic growth that is "a sine qua non for the survival of a modern democracy," he also insists that any economic philosophy has to be enlarged by "political philosophy, moral philosophy, and even religious thought," which were as much the sine qua non for a modern democracy.
Note that Irving Kristol wanted to mix an economic philosophy as part of a larger "political, moral and RELIGIOUS" philosophy. It wasn't just about business, taxes and good 'ol American freedom. All the current neocons did (His son, Karl Rove, Cheney, Colson, Wolfowitz, etc) was allow the conversation to be changed to CHRISTIAN philosophy, but the formula is exactly the same. They allowed it to be changed fundamentally because the goals of Israel and the United States were seen by them as the same. Defeat Islam and spread business interests throughout the world and more specifically, the Middle East to control the region.
It's not hard to spot a neoconservative in this country; they are usually the ones waving Biblical canons and tenets in people's faces whenever they want to pass some type of legislation regarding social, business, political and moral issues; usually ignorant of where their namesake comes from. This is why Reagan was always written to have "God Bless America" at every opportunity. They framed his whole presidency and the movement around the idea that if they can get people to buy the idea they were operating from a moral ground, then ANYTHING they do after that is fair game and God sanctioned. Trickle down and tell everyone you'll get yours after we get ours? Yep, it's Biblical. Try and destablize Iran in the 80's? Sure. God is on our side. Try and destabilize Panama? God says its ok. Start a war? Sure, we are on the side of Right. Torture? Yep, God just gave us the nod.
That is the most ironic thing is that neoconservatives and most Republicans buy into this notion without understanding it's formed from the forms of government they fear will take over the country. They have no idea that there is already a paradigm shift is already ongoing.
Younger people aren't tied down to religion like older generations are, so that part doesn't work that God onlywinks at the United States. Younger people are more empathetic to the less fortunate because they are less jaded than older folks who say "If you didn't get it, you don't deserve it", mainly because a lot of them don't have yet. Younger folks think every citizen should have affordable if not free healthcare and free college, because they already know plenty of people from places where they already do, and they would stand to benefit foremost. And younger people are less likely to buy the bigoted hated of Muslims and people of other races that you see on Fox News and such because, unlike their fathers and grandfathers, there are a lot more minorities around than back in their day and they actually interact with them. Not as some abstract person like a janitor or weirdly dressed person, but as a co-worker, partner, or boss. So they get to know the people, not just as some dirty whatever from the other side of the tracks.
Neocons don't understand this, and there is actually no way they can sucessfully reframe an old Marxist idea of greed and divisiveness into something attractive other than "You can make a lot of money if you follow us." The only appeal they'd have to the younger generation is money, and they won't see that for many, many years.
I'm going to diverge slightly from popinjay here -- I don't really think that the religious and moral "ideals" that the neoconservatives ran on are actually things that they care about. They wrapped themselves in God, gays and the flag to get elected.
You're right, though, that the younger generations are less tied to religion. And when you strip away the religion and the social issues, issues on which a growing number of Americans are becoming increasingly liberal, then you see what the Republican Party truly has to offer these days. And it ain't much.
And what appears to be the GOP's current strategy -- to push out the moderates and grease the skids for a Sarah Palin/Bobby Jindal ticket in 2012 -- is political suicide.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
And I, for one, find Fisher's allegations of "antisemitism on the left" to be complete bullshit and actually pretty offensive.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
But to go back to one of Fisher's earlier points, then what's the purpose of even using "neocon"? How do they differ from other conservatives? If they are simply conservatives who were once liberals, why do they need a special label? Aren't they also, simply conservatives? We don't call liberals who were once conservative, neolibs. Clearly, there's something else going on underneath the surface.
I think the 1980's showed us why the New Deal did no work. In the late 70's we had a recession very similiar to the one we are in now and from the late 1920's. The difference between them is that in 1929, 1932, and 1937, the government tried to stimulate the economy through spending. Something that was done differently in the '80s. The 1930's government believed stimulation should start by increasing taxes on the rich and spending it on infrastructure, and pretty much spreading it all around except in a few ways. The way the 1980's recession was fought involved much higher military spending and a maintained income tax cut with an increase in corporate income taxes. In the 1940's, the US began to spend more on the military with war in Europe and Asia. The simple fact being in both cases spending into the military and deficit spending did alot to pull us out of the recession.
However, the actions being taken by congress are the actions taken that could potentially prolong this recession a decade and even shift it into a depression. If that were to happen I have no doubt Obama and the democrats would have made a huge blunder that will cost them their political careers.
In the Arlen Specter issue. I think he deserves not to be re-elected. Its career politicians like him that have tainted the US congress. He has been there 29 years and has managed to spend like crazy, get us into multiple wars, and now thinks democrats are dumb enough to vote for him just because he put a D next to his name. He has been corrupted in his time in congress and has grown blind to whats happening outside Washington D.C. Even the public knows better then this guy.
Now I'm sure we are going to disagree on this, but from my perspective, the Democrats have already lost the current battle.
Sorry.. you already had your opportunity to prove you understood this thread and the subject matter a few pages ago. And you failed extremely hard:
Originally posted by Zindaihas:
But there appears to be an inordinate number of jews who are characterized as "neocons" and the term is meant to be derogatory. It also seems to be tied to present day support for the nation of Israel. Of course, anti-semitism and racism are frowned upon in America, so disguising it in the term neocon is a clever way to get away with it.
So you are suggesting with that nonsense about "neocons" being a derogatory term, when the FOUNDER of the American neoconservative movement writes autobiographical books titled-
"Reflections of a Neoconservative: Looking Back, Looking Ahead " by Irving Kristol
"Neo-Conservatism : The Autobiography of an Idea" by Irving Kristol
So the godfather of neoconservatism who was a Marxist, wrote scores of books proudly describing himself and the movement as "neoconservative" was really unaware that it was meant to be a derogatory term because it was cleverly disguised? He was that stupid? Look at his bio... I don't think so. I have no idea what you read before you post sometimes, cause it usually turns out pretty nutty in logic.
BTW: A REAL conservative? William Buckley, Adlai Stevenson, Wayne Morse, Eisenhower, Goldwater, Rockefeller, Henry Cabot Lodge.. those guys were conservatives. They were able to take a fiscal message and separate it from a social or religious message, unlike todays conservatives who can't seem to walk and chew gum at the same time without lumping everything into one super-sized meal and talking point. Neocons don't know how to separate a money issue from a religious issue from a rights issue. To them its all the same thing; you have to agree with all of them, not one or two of them or you're a traitor or commie. The old school conservatives could be strong on fiscal issues and curbed spending, but vote for civil rights, affirmative action, be against unjust wars like Vietnam, equal pay for women, and separation of Church and state.
Today's "conservatives" are little more than afterbirth.
I think the 1980's showed us why the New Deal did no work. In the late 70's we had a recession very similiar to the one we are in now and from the late 1920's. The difference between them is that in 1929, 1932, and 1937, the government tried to stimulate the economy through spending. Something that was done differently in the '80s. The 1930's government believed stimulation should start by increasing taxes on the rich and spending it on infrastructure, and pretty much spreading it all around except in a few ways. The way the 1980's recession was fought involved much higher military spending and a maintained income tax cut with an increase in corporate income taxes. In the 1940's, the US began to spend more on the military with war in Europe and Asia. The simple fact being in both cases spending into the military and deficit spending did alot to pull us out of the recession.
Exactly right. I've pointed this out myself, though not on this forum, I don't believe. And you will never be able to get liberals to admit to this, especially those who think FDR was the greatest President ever. But the late 1920s and the late 1970s, the two most economically troubling times of the 20th century, offer a clear and convincing contrast on how to initiate an economic recovery. FDR went the way of government spending and the economy languished for more than a decade. Ronald Reagan went the way of tax cuts and freeing up the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people and the economy soared. And everyone knew it was the tax cuts that did it and rewarded Reagan by handing him a 49 state, 59% landslide in 1984.
I think the 1980's showed us why the New Deal did no work.
First.. what? New Deal in the 80s? I hope for your sake that's a typo.
Originally posted by Cleffy
In the Arlen Specter issue. I think he deserves not to be re-elected.
Thankfully, you probably don't live in PA like I do. Next, it doesn't matter what you think, its what the voters think. So what the guy switched sides? People do it all the time when they feel they have little in common with their party. Besides, it's as American as apple pie. Please get off your high horse before you fall off and hurt your head.
Richard Shelby of Alabama
Democrat, 1987-1994; Republican, 1994-present
Shelby left the Democratic Party to join the Republicans on November 9, 1994, just after 1994 midterm elections that gave Republicans control of both chambers of Congress. -----------------------
Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado
Democrat, 1993-1995; Republican, 1995-2005
Campbell left the Democratic Party March 3, 1995, to join the Republicans. ------------------------ Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Democrat, 1989-2006; Independent, 2006-present
Lieberman lost his state's Democratic primary in August 2006, but won re-election in November as an Independent, though he had not officially changed his voter registration. In the Senate, he continues to caucus with the Democrats -------------------------
Bob Smith of New Hampshire
Republican, 1990-July 13, 1999; Independent, July 13, 1999-November 1, 1999; Republican, November 1999-2003
Smith left the Republican Party on July 13, 1999, to become an Independent. On November 1, 1999, he switched back to the Republican Party, noting that he had never officially switched parties because his voter registration in New Hampshire remained unchanged. --------------------------
No one was yelling when these Republicans switched. Right wing people are funny. They claim liberals yell victim all day long, but when things don't go their way, they are the first to want to pack up the ball and go home. Buncha spoiled rich kids.
But to go back to one of Fisher's earlier points, then what's the purpose of even using "neocon"? How do they differ from other conservatives? If they are simply conservatives who were once liberals, why do they need a special label? Aren't they also, simply conservatives? We don't call liberals who were once conservative, neolibs. Clearly, there's something else going on underneath the surface.
I think Janeane Garofalo is an idiot.
The difference has been shown REPEATEDLY. That you choose not to see it, and then think it's some insidious label that is attached by "leftists" clearly shows that you have no interest in honest debate, and instead wish to cling to the remnants of your failed ideology and play the victim. Congratulations. You lose.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Originally posted by Zindaihas Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by Cleffy
I think the 1980's showed us why the New Deal did no work.
First.. what? New Deal in the 80s? I hope for your sake that's a typo.
I'm not surprised sound economic principal would escape you completely.
Then you explain how the New Deal....
"The New Deal was the name that United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave to a complex package of economic programs he initiated between 1933 and 1935 with the goal of giving relief to the unemployed, reform of business and financial practices, and promoting recovery of the economy during The Great Depression."
But to go back to one of Fisher's earlier points, then what's the purpose of even using "neocon"? How do they differ from other conservatives? If they are simply conservatives who were once liberals, why do they need a special label? Aren't they also, simply conservatives? We don't call liberals who were once conservative, neolibs. Clearly, there's something else going on underneath the surface.
I think Janeane Garofalo is an idiot.
The difference has been shown REPEATEDLY. That you choose not to see it, and then think it's some insidious label that is attached by "leftists" clearly shows that you have no interest in honest debate, and instead wish to cling to the remnants of your failed ideology and play the victim. Congratulations. You lose.
Well thank you for not addressing my point and dodging issue. It's difficult to debate someone who deflects by changing the subject.
I think the 1980's showed us why the New Deal did no work.
First.. what? New Deal in the 80s? I hope for your sake that's a typo.
I'm not surprised sound economic principal would escape you completely.
Then you explain how the New Deal....
"The New Deal was the name that United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave to a complex package of economic programs he initiated between 1933 and 1935 with the goal of giving relief to the unemployed, reform of business and financial practices, and promoting recovery of the economy during The Great Depression."
...had anything to do with the 1980s.
I did in my affirmation of Cleffy's post. He pointed out how the two most challenging times economically of the 20th century were handled differently and the results were crystal clear. That's what they have to do with each other.
Originally posted by Zindaihas Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by Zindaihas
Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by Cleffy
I think the 1980's showed us why the New Deal did no work.
First.. what? New Deal in the 80s? I hope for your sake that's a typo.
I'm not surprised sound economic principal would escape you completely.
Then you explain how the New Deal.... "The New Deal was the name that United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave to a complex package of economic programs he initiated between 1933 and 1935 with the goal of giving relief to the unemployed, reform of business and financial practices, and promoting recovery of the economy during The Great Depression."
...had anything to do with the 1980s.
I did in my affirmation of Cleffy's post. He pointed out how the two most challenging times economically of the 20th century were handled differently and the results were crystal clear. That's what they have to do with each other.
Man, you are a really bad reader.
He's claiming the New Deal didn't work in the 80's. What's so hard to read about that?
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said, "Let's be honest: Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Senator Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
1 billion dollars an hour...
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Comments
Yep. A big pile of steaming.. evasion. Keep going, you're about as close to Godwin's Law as you can get.
I am only using the definition and information that YOU provided. Now you are the one doing the evading.
You know what's nice?
How you just admitted there that you were evading. But that's not exactly a newsflash. Anyone reading this thread knew that. Evasion and religion baiting. De facto admissions of lost debates.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Yep. A big pile of steaming.. evasion. Keep going, you're about as close to Godwin's Law as you can get.
I am only using the definition and information that YOU provided. Now you are the one doing the evading.
You know what's nice?
How you just admitted there that you were evading. But that's not exactly a newsflash. Anyone reading this thread knew that. Evasion and religion baiting. De facto admissions of lost debates.
I've admitted nothing -- perhaps a poor word choice. I am being open and direct. I have asked you for a definition -- you provided me with several, so I asked you WHICH ONE you are using. You are the only one here who is being evading. Sorry I was unclear.
What have I evaded?
fishermage.blogspot.com
YOU provided the wiki article popinjay, which states exactly what I am saying -- the meaning of the word used to mean someone who was a liberal when they were young, anf shifted conservative as they grew more mature.
The article then goes on to note the problem with the shifting meaning, and how it is now being used as an antiseitic slur. That came from YOUR SOURCE, popinjay.
The only one evading is you. I have nothing to evade. I don't like the word -- it is an epithet and as such is useless in civil discourse.
I am baiting nothing, but I do want to kow what YOU mean. Yet you keep evading.
fishermage.blogspot.com
There's two definitions of victory in politics. One is winning elections, which the democrats have done in the last two election cycles, no question. The other definition is results. Now I'm sure we are going to disagree on this, but from my perspective, the Democrats have already lost the current battle. They lost it when they rammed through the most outrageous government spending in the history of the United States, with the prospect of more to come. They did it for short term gain, but in the end, it's going to lead to long term disaster. There's simply a lag time for this flood of money into the economy to start having a negatvie effect.
But going back to Colson, if you consider signing a letter that someone else drafted as being politically active, then I guess in your eyes, he has been involved in politics. I regard being politically active as being involved in policy making, receiving compensation for political input or lobbying, etc. Not signing a letter.
I don't know what the last 4 pages have been about, but I just want to say again how happy I am going to be seeing the republicans realize that they can no longer get up and read out of a phonebook because they don't like spending money to help people lower than themselves.
The Official God FAQ
There's two definitions of victory in politics. One is winning elections, which the democrats have done in the last two election cycles, no question. The other definition is results. Now I'm sure we are going to disagree on this, but from my perspective, the Democrats have already lost the current battle. They lost it when they rammed through the most outrageous government spending in the history of the United States, with the prospect of more to come. They did it for short term game, but in the end, it's going to lead to long term disaster. There's simply a lag time for this flood of money into the economy to start having a negatvie effect.
What happens when more than 50% of Americans believe that a party has achieved great results while in office?
Or does their opinion not count?
The Official God FAQ
What happens when more than 50% of Americans believe that a party has achieved great results while in office?
Or does their opinion not count?
I call it a pyschological effect. So many people think Obama is hip and cool (especially in the media) and even though nothing's improved yet, people apparently perceive that they have, or will soon. It's just like what happened when FDR was President. He spent massive amounts of taxpayer money with little or no effect, but people perceived that he was doing something, which made him popular.
I just think it means Jewish conservative. It's part of the new antisemitism so prevalent on the left these days. I see nothing but an epithet.
It certainly seems to have no meaning other than Jews who are conservative.
You and I had this discussion months ago.
The definition is there, and has been presented to you numerous times.
New antisemitism? More proof that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I am merely using the evidence that popinjay provided. HE provided that definition, not me.
Please, what does it mean? If it has been presented numerous times, you ought to be able to do it easily. Go ahead. Define it, then distnguish it from a regular conservative. Then provide examples of people who are conservatives but NOT neo-cons, and explain the differentiation.
None of the sources popinjay quotes can do that consistently. let us see if you can. I know, I don't know what I am talking about here. I don't know what YOU are talking about, since you and popinjay refuse to define it clearly.
Illuminate me, educate me, instead of your usual trolling -- try and ADD to the discussion.
Well, it's been defined for you about 37 times, but I'll go ahead.
Neoconservatives generally advocate expanding U.S. military power globally, unilateralism, and pre-emptive military action. The neoconservative branch of the overall conservative movement (the tax cuts for the rich, etc.) essentially hijacked the party during the Bush "administration."
NOTABLE NEOCONSERVATIVES: Dick Cheney, George W. Bush (although I'm not really sure how much he qualifies), Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld.
NOTABLE CONSERVATIVES WHO DO NOT GENERALLY FALL INTO THE NEOCONSERVATIVE MOLD: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Pat Buchanan.
Now, the fact that the Republican Party overwhelmingly supported the Iraq War does not make all conservatives "neoconservatives" -- let's not forget that the war was sold to all of us based on false pretenses. Siding with the neoconservatives who were essentially running the Justice Department, the State Department, the DOD and the rest of the Bush cabinet was, for the vast majority of the Republican Party, politically expedient.
A good read on the divide between the neoconservatives and "paleoconservatives" can be found here, apologies if it was posted earlier in the thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative_-_Paleoconservative_Conflict
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
One last time? You barely even mention Irving Kristol's name. That's denial and disrepectful.
He is undisputedly the originator of the American Neoconservative movement. That movement had to deal with economic issues as well as national and social issues in Kristol's day. Kristol many times in his own writings was very vocal about the treatment and condition of Jews in this country by its citizens/government. He was even part of a Trotskyist sect. I know you already know who those guys are, right? Trotsky=Marxist. They are from the brush that you and other posters keep trying to paint Obama with. Marxist, socialist, communist. So the entire modern day Republican neoconservative movement was founded by a Jew who was a Marxist. That is an undeniable, HISTORICAL fact. Evade it if you wish. It wasn't founded by some bible-totin' Christian Republican. It was spawned from Marxist thought.
He sought to make inroads with people in the United States government who were friendly towards Israeli concerns, as well as institute changes in the way American politics were conducted. He thought this-
Note that Irving Kristol wanted to mix an economic philosophy as part of a larger "political, moral and RELIGIOUS" philosophy. It wasn't just about business, taxes and good 'ol American freedom. All the current neocons did (His son, Karl Rove, Cheney, Colson, Wolfowitz, etc) was allow the conversation to be changed to CHRISTIAN philosophy, but the formula is exactly the same. They allowed it to be changed fundamentally because the goals of Israel and the United States were seen by them as the same. Defeat Islam and spread business interests throughout the world and more specifically, the Middle East to control the region.
It's not hard to spot a neoconservative in this country; they are usually the ones waving Biblical canons and tenets in people's faces whenever they want to pass some type of legislation regarding social, business, political and moral issues; usually ignorant of where their namesake comes from. This is why Reagan was always written to have "God Bless America" at every opportunity. They framed his whole presidency and the movement around the idea that if they can get people to buy the idea they were operating from a moral ground, then ANYTHING they do after that is fair game and God sanctioned. Trickle down and tell everyone you'll get yours after we get ours? Yep, it's Biblical. Try and destablize Iran in the 80's? Sure. God is on our side. Try and destabilize Panama? God says its ok. Start a war? Sure, we are on the side of Right. Torture? Yep, God just gave us the nod.
That is the most ironic thing is that neoconservatives and most Republicans buy into this notion without understanding it's formed from the forms of government they fear will take over the country. They have no idea that there is already a paradigm shift is already ongoing.
Younger people aren't tied down to religion like older generations are, so that part doesn't work that God onlywinks at the United States. Younger people are more empathetic to the less fortunate because they are less jaded than older folks who say "If you didn't get it, you don't deserve it", mainly because a lot of them don't have yet. Younger folks think every citizen should have affordable if not free healthcare and free college, because they already know plenty of people from places where they already do, and they would stand to benefit foremost. And younger people are less likely to buy the bigoted hated of Muslims and people of other races that you see on Fox News and such because, unlike their fathers and grandfathers, there are a lot more minorities around than back in their day and they actually interact with them. Not as some abstract person like a janitor or weirdly dressed person, but as a co-worker, partner, or boss. So they get to know the people, not just as some dirty whatever from the other side of the tracks.
Neocons don't understand this, and there is actually no way they can sucessfully reframe an old Marxist idea of greed and divisiveness into something attractive other than "You can make a lot of money if you follow us." The only appeal they'd have to the younger generation is money, and they won't see that for many, many years.
The Grand Ol' Party is full of sad, old people.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I'm going to diverge slightly from popinjay here -- I don't really think that the religious and moral "ideals" that the neoconservatives ran on are actually things that they care about. They wrapped themselves in God, gays and the flag to get elected.
You're right, though, that the younger generations are less tied to religion. And when you strip away the religion and the social issues, issues on which a growing number of Americans are becoming increasingly liberal, then you see what the Republican Party truly has to offer these days. And it ain't much.
And what appears to be the GOP's current strategy -- to push out the moderates and grease the skids for a Sarah Palin/Bobby Jindal ticket in 2012 -- is political suicide.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
And I, for one, find Fisher's allegations of "antisemitism on the left" to be complete bullshit and actually pretty offensive.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Do you find it any more offensive than this?
But to go back to one of Fisher's earlier points, then what's the purpose of even using "neocon"? How do they differ from other conservatives? If they are simply conservatives who were once liberals, why do they need a special label? Aren't they also, simply conservatives? We don't call liberals who were once conservative, neolibs. Clearly, there's something else going on underneath the surface.
Who is left in the Republican party besides ditto heads?
LOL.
I think the 1980's showed us why the New Deal did no work. In the late 70's we had a recession very similiar to the one we are in now and from the late 1920's. The difference between them is that in 1929, 1932, and 1937, the government tried to stimulate the economy through spending. Something that was done differently in the '80s. The 1930's government believed stimulation should start by increasing taxes on the rich and spending it on infrastructure, and pretty much spreading it all around except in a few ways. The way the 1980's recession was fought involved much higher military spending and a maintained income tax cut with an increase in corporate income taxes. In the 1940's, the US began to spend more on the military with war in Europe and Asia. The simple fact being in both cases spending into the military and deficit spending did alot to pull us out of the recession.
However, the actions being taken by congress are the actions taken that could potentially prolong this recession a decade and even shift it into a depression. If that were to happen I have no doubt Obama and the democrats would have made a huge blunder that will cost them their political careers.
In the Arlen Specter issue. I think he deserves not to be re-elected. Its career politicians like him that have tainted the US congress. He has been there 29 years and has managed to spend like crazy, get us into multiple wars, and now thinks democrats are dumb enough to vote for him just because he put a D next to his name. He has been corrupted in his time in congress and has grown blind to whats happening outside Washington D.C. Even the public knows better then this guy.
Sorry.. you already had your opportunity to prove you understood this thread and the subject matter a few pages ago. And you failed extremely hard:
So you are suggesting with that nonsense about "neocons" being a derogatory term, when the FOUNDER of the American neoconservative movement writes autobiographical books titled-
"Reflections of a Neoconservative: Looking Back, Looking Ahead "
by Irving Kristol
"Neo-Conservatism : The Autobiography of an Idea"
by Irving Kristol
So the godfather of neoconservatism who was a Marxist, wrote scores of books proudly describing himself and the movement as "neoconservative" was really unaware that it was meant to be a derogatory term because it was cleverly disguised? He was that stupid? Look at his bio... I don't think so. I have no idea what you read before you post sometimes, cause it usually turns out pretty nutty in logic.
BTW: A REAL conservative? William Buckley, Adlai Stevenson, Wayne Morse, Eisenhower, Goldwater, Rockefeller, Henry Cabot Lodge.. those guys were conservatives. They were able to take a fiscal message and separate it from a social or religious message, unlike todays conservatives who can't seem to walk and chew gum at the same time without lumping everything into one super-sized meal and talking point. Neocons don't know how to separate a money issue from a religious issue from a rights issue. To them its all the same thing; you have to agree with all of them, not one or two of them or you're a traitor or commie. The old school conservatives could be strong on fiscal issues and curbed spending, but vote for civil rights, affirmative action, be against unjust wars like Vietnam, equal pay for women, and separation of Church and state.
Today's "conservatives" are little more than afterbirth.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Exactly right. I've pointed this out myself, though not on this forum, I don't believe. And you will never be able to get liberals to admit to this, especially those who think FDR was the greatest President ever. But the late 1920s and the late 1970s, the two most economically troubling times of the 20th century, offer a clear and convincing contrast on how to initiate an economic recovery. FDR went the way of government spending and the economy languished for more than a decade. Ronald Reagan went the way of tax cuts and freeing up the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people and the economy soared. And everyone knew it was the tax cuts that did it and rewarded Reagan by handing him a 49 state, 59% landslide in 1984.
Thankfully, you probably don't live in PA like I do. Next, it doesn't matter what you think, its what the voters think. So what the guy switched sides? People do it all the time when they feel they have little in common with their party. Besides, it's as American as apple pie. Please get off your high horse before you fall off and hurt your head.First.. what? New Deal in the 80s? I hope for your sake that's a typo.
Richard Shelby of Alabama
Democrat, 1987-1994; Republican, 1994-present
Shelby left the Democratic Party to join the Republicans on November 9, 1994, just after 1994 midterm elections that gave Republicans control of both chambers of Congress.
-----------------------
Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado
Democrat, 1993-1995; Republican, 1995-2005
Campbell left the Democratic Party March 3, 1995, to join the Republicans.
------------------------
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Democrat, 1989-2006; Independent, 2006-present
Lieberman lost his state's Democratic primary in August 2006, but won re-election in November as an Independent, though he had not officially changed his voter registration. In the Senate, he continues to caucus with the Democrats
-------------------------
Bob Smith of New Hampshire
Republican, 1990-July 13, 1999; Independent, July 13, 1999-November 1, 1999; Republican, November 1999-2003
Smith left the Republican Party on July 13, 1999, to become an Independent. On November 1, 1999, he switched back to the Republican Party, noting that he had never officially switched parties because his voter registration in New Hampshire remained unchanged.
--------------------------
No one was yelling when these Republicans switched. Right wing people are funny. They claim liberals yell victim all day long, but when things don't go their way, they are the first to want to pack up the ball and go home. Buncha spoiled rich kids.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Do you find it any more offensive than this?
But to go back to one of Fisher's earlier points, then what's the purpose of even using "neocon"? How do they differ from other conservatives? If they are simply conservatives who were once liberals, why do they need a special label? Aren't they also, simply conservatives? We don't call liberals who were once conservative, neolibs. Clearly, there's something else going on underneath the surface.
I think Janeane Garofalo is an idiot.
The difference has been shown REPEATEDLY. That you choose not to see it, and then think it's some insidious label that is attached by "leftists" clearly shows that you have no interest in honest debate, and instead wish to cling to the remnants of your failed ideology and play the victim. Congratulations. You lose.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
First.. what? New Deal in the 80s? I hope for your sake that's a typo.
I'm not surprised sound economic principal would escape you completely.
First.. what? New Deal in the 80s? I hope for your sake that's a typo.
I'm not surprised sound economic principal would escape you completely.
Then you explain how the New Deal....
"The New Deal was the name that United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave to a complex package of economic programs he initiated between 1933 and 1935 with the goal of giving relief to the unemployed, reform of business and financial practices, and promoting recovery of the economy during The Great Depression."
...had anything to do with the 1980s.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Do you find it any more offensive than this?
But to go back to one of Fisher's earlier points, then what's the purpose of even using "neocon"? How do they differ from other conservatives? If they are simply conservatives who were once liberals, why do they need a special label? Aren't they also, simply conservatives? We don't call liberals who were once conservative, neolibs. Clearly, there's something else going on underneath the surface.
I think Janeane Garofalo is an idiot.
The difference has been shown REPEATEDLY. That you choose not to see it, and then think it's some insidious label that is attached by "leftists" clearly shows that you have no interest in honest debate, and instead wish to cling to the remnants of your failed ideology and play the victim. Congratulations. You lose.
Well thank you for not addressing my point and dodging issue. It's difficult to debate someone who deflects by changing the subject.
First.. what? New Deal in the 80s? I hope for your sake that's a typo.
I'm not surprised sound economic principal would escape you completely.
Then you explain how the New Deal....
"The New Deal was the name that United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave to a complex package of economic programs he initiated between 1933 and 1935 with the goal of giving relief to the unemployed, reform of business and financial practices, and promoting recovery of the economy during The Great Depression."
...had anything to do with the 1980s.
I did in my affirmation of Cleffy's post. He pointed out how the two most challenging times economically of the 20th century were handled differently and the results were crystal clear. That's what they have to do with each other.
First.. what? New Deal in the 80s? I hope for your sake that's a typo.
I'm not surprised sound economic principal would escape you completely.
Then you explain how the New Deal....
"The New Deal was the name that United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave to a complex package of economic programs he initiated between 1933 and 1935 with the goal of giving relief to the unemployed, reform of business and financial practices, and promoting recovery of the economy during The Great Depression."
...had anything to do with the 1980s.
I did in my affirmation of Cleffy's post. He pointed out how the two most challenging times economically of the 20th century were handled differently and the results were crystal clear. That's what they have to do with each other.
Man, you are a really bad reader.
He's claiming the New Deal didn't work in the 80's. What's so hard to read about that?
"TO MICHAEL!"
Steel said it best...
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said, "Let's be honest: Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Senator Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
1 billion dollars an hour...
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Will Duverger's Law be tested? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law