"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?
And I'm sure you're really not that ignorant, you are simply pretending to not to understand what he is saying. He said the 1980s showed us why the New Deal did not work. He was contrasting FDR's New Deal policies of the 1930s to Ronald Reagan's policy of tax cuts and military spending of the 1980s. Got it now?
Originally posted by frodus 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...
Oh, and NOW you like Steele, huh? Must be that foam that's now coming from the sides of his mouth that suddenly made him so attractive. Nothing like rabies for sheer animal magnetism, I guess.
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...
Ah, thanks for that. I was looking for that earlier, but missed it. No question Specter saw the writing on the wall and made the jump. The path to re-election is not going to be a cakewalk as a Democrat. I can't see a former Republican suddenly endearing himself to all Democrats in Pennsylvania. But he's right when he thinks it will be easier for him as a Democrat than as a Republican.
Originally posted by Zindaihas Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by Zindaihas
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?
And I'm sure you're really not that ignorant, you are simply pretending to not to understand what he is saying. He said the 1980s showed us why the New Deal did not work. He was contrasting FDR's New Deal policies of the 1930s to Ronald Reagan's policy of tax cuts and military spending of the 1980s. Got it now?
And precisely what was the point in that?
That's like saying a financial purge didn't work in the 1980s as well. It made no sense to bring in a tactic that WASN'T used and say "This is why we didn't use it". Learn to read what's written, instead of imaging what he meant. He wrote that and until he clarifies it, it stands. Besides, duh.. the situation in the 1980s was not this bad. So the two most challenging times economically of the 20th century were the Great Depression and Bush's Regression, not the 80s.
He got the dates wrong I bet, just like you did earlier with the whole "neocon is a derogatory insult" thing when it wasn't, lmao.
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.
Merely saying that a large number of early neo-cons were Jewish is in no way being Anti- Semitic. Stupid if you think otherwise. By Saying you think it is you are pushing your own anti-semitism. You're the one to make the connection not Popinjay.
p.s. I would link the other posts but pyramids annoy me.
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
"Some of those identified as neoconservative reject the term, arguing that it lacks a coherent definition, or that it was coherent only in the context of the Cold War.
Conservative writer David Horowitz argues that the increasing use of the term neoconservative since the 2003 start of the Iraq War has made it irrelevant:[citation needed]
Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
The term may have lost meaning due to excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have been identified as leading neoconservatives despite the fact that they have been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has supported Irving Kristol's ideas).
Some critics reject the idea that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism. Traditional conservatives are skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term and dislike being associated with its stereotypes or supposed agendas. Columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."[48] Jonah Goldberg rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative."
See the bit in red? That means that what is written after it is irrelevent other than being a PERSONAL opinion. You cannot use un-cited sources in wikipedia as fact. Even some of the cited sources can be dubious due to some of the books out there.
I could cite a "fact" from Mein Kampf if I wanted to but it wouldn't necessarily be true.
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
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.
What i find amusing about this is the fact that Karl Marx himself was a Jew along with the almost half of the major figures in the Russian Revolution of 1917. After the revolution a good 25% of the politburo were Jewish. It was one of the things which gave National Socialism in Germany a fertile breeding ground.(and no I AM NOT ANTI SEMITIC)
The irony of the Neo-cons being founded by a Trotsky Communist is priceless. Especially when you think of the persecutions of the '50s. I thought Neo-cons hated state capitalism/communism with a passion :P
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Oh, and Jewish is not a race. Do you feel Jews are a race, Popinjay? Hmmmm. I know a few people who feel that way.
Earlier in the thread Fisher you say you are a Jewish Christian. How can you be of 2 seperate religious persuasions at the same time? You can't believe that Jesus saved us all as well as believe the teachings of Judaism as a religion. One must therefore presume that you are refering to yourself as a Jewish person who happens to be a Christian in their religious belief. Thus reinforcing the notion of a Jewish Race.
Here is a brief history of how Judaism turned into a race rather than just a religion.
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
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.
Good point. I will restate, my problem with the word is the shift in meaning -- it has shifted so far from the original meaning taht it no longe has any real meaning.
Bush can't be a neo-con, he's been a conservative his whole life. Same with Cheney -- yet people call both of them neo-con. It is also used, by people like Pat Buchanan to mean EITHER Jewish conservative, OR Zionist conservative. IT is an epithet, plain and simple.
Threads like this make me hopeful for the zombie apocalypse. Just need to get my hands on some nice ARs and such before it all goes down. Maybe a terminator style nuke war. Survival will bring you squabbling politicos together.
Bring it on Haz. Killing Zombies sounds FUN
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
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.
Merely saying that a large number of early neo-cons were Jewish is in no way being Anti- Semitic. Stupid if you think otherwise. By Saying you think it is you are pushing your own anti-semitism. You're the one to make the connection not Popinjay.
p.s. I would link the other posts but pyramids annoy me.
No, merely saying that a large number of neo-cons are Jewish does not automatically make it anti-semitism. But when it is combined with saying they are Zionists, it might be. I am not making the connection, other people have made the connection, and people like Pat BUchanan use it that way more openly.
I'm not making the connection, the source popinjay gave us is, wikipedia. It is am known controversey, something I feel we would be better served if we strayed away from.
"Some of those identified as neoconservative reject the term, arguing that it lacks a coherent definition, or that it was coherent only in the context of the Cold War.
Conservative writer David Horowitz argues that the increasing use of the term neoconservative since the 2003 start of the Iraq War has made it irrelevant:[citation needed]
Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
The term may have lost meaning due to excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have been identified as leading neoconservatives despite the fact that they have been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has supported Irving Kristol's ideas).
Some critics reject the idea that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism. Traditional conservatives are skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term and dislike being associated with its stereotypes or supposed agendas. Columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."[48] Jonah Goldberg rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative."
See the bit in red? That means that what is written after it is irrelevent other than being a PERSONAL opinion. You cannot use un-cited sources in wikipedia as fact. Even some of the cited sources can be dubious due to some of the books out there.
I could cite a "fact" from Mein Kampf if I wanted to but it wouldn't necessarily be true.
All definitions are nothing more than aggregates of usage -- ie, opinions.
I am highlighting the controversey over the term, and explaining how the meaning has shifted until now it means anything taht the individual using it hates.
Oh, and Jewish is not a race. Do you feel Jews are a race, Popinjay? Hmmmm. I know a few people who feel that way.
Earlier in the thread Fisher you say you are a Jewish Christian. How can you be of 2 seperate religious persuasions at the same time? You can't believe that Jesus saved us all as well as believe the teachings of Judaism as a religion. One must therefore presume that you are refering to yourself as a Jewish person who happens to be a Christian in their religious belief. Thus reinforcing the notion of a Jewish Race.
Here is a brief history of how Judaism turned into a race rather than just a religion.
Easy, the same way that Paul was a Jewish Christian and so was Peter, so was James. NONE of them stopped being jews when they accepted Jesus as messiah. Much of the New testament is filled with the discussion of how does one deal with GENTILE Christians, and whether the ld Jewish religius traditions need to still be practiced. No one changed their religion. They merely felt they were continuing their religion in a more full way with Christ.
I was raised a Jew and I have accepted Jesus as messiah. That makes me what is known as a Messianic Jew. Christianity is not a separate religion from Judaiism -- it is a continuation. In the BIble, Christians call themselves "Israel" meaning Jewish.
Judaism is not a race. It is a religion.
EDIT: One can argue that Jew is an ethnoreligious group, but that doesn't make it a race. Those early zionists (as well as earlier anti-semites) and modern people, who called it such were wrong.
Arab is not a race either. It is an ethnic group, technically an ethnolinguistic group. Not a race.
Threads like this make me hopeful for the zombie apocalypse. Just need to get my hands on some nice ARs and such before it all goes down. Maybe a terminator style nuke war. Survival will bring you squabbling politicos together.
Bring it on Haz. Killing Zombies sounds FUN
I'm hoping the swine flu mutates to create some sort of human/pig/zombie hybrid.
"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?
And I'm sure you're really not that ignorant, you are simply pretending to not to understand what he is saying. He said the 1980s showed us why the New Deal did not work. He was contrasting FDR's New Deal policies of the 1930s to Ronald Reagan's policy of tax cuts and military spending of the 1980s. Got it now?
And precisely what was the point in that?
That's like saying a financial purge didn't work in the 1980s as well. It made no sense to bring in a tactic that WASN'T used and say "This is why we didn't use it". Learn to read what's written, instead of imaging what he meant. He wrote that and until he clarifies it, it stands. Besides, duh.. the situation in the 1980s was not this bad. So the two most challenging times economically of the 20th century were the Great Depression and Bush's Regression, not the 80s.
He got the dates wrong I bet, just like you did earlier with the whole "neocon is a derogatory insult" thing when it wasn't, lmao.
I think you misread that opening paragraph. Ofcourse they did not try the New Deal in the 1980s. It should have been obvious it was a comparison. The current recession we are in is no where near the recession in the late 1970's after the Vietnam War, over 10% unemployment and inflation. We aren't there yet. In comparison to 1929, the situation with the collapse of Wallstreet was very similiar to the banking problems in the late 1970's. The only difference is how each president handled it. However, I would say the main culprit behind both recessions has been government intervention. In 1929 a result of the Feds alteration backlashing, and in the late 1970's the results of Nixon and Carter.
Good point. I will restate, my problem with the word is the shift in meaning -- it has shifted so far from the original meaning taht it no longe has any real meaning. Bush can't be a neo-con, he's been a conservative his whole life. Same with Cheney -- yet people call both of them neo-con. It is also used, by people like Pat Buchanan to mean EITHER Jewish conservative, OR Zionist conservative. IT is an epithet, plain and simple.
So you're claiming that because a goofball like Pat Buchanan misuses a term which he doesn't understand (if you say he's using "neocon" as a Jewish insult) makes the origins of the word and what it really means irrelevant? That's a pretty ridicoulous claim, even for you Fisher. Because one crackpot wants to call daytime "nighttime", in an attempt to make the meaning change doesn't mean the vast majority of the normal thinking population agrees.
Again, Irving Kristol, godfather of the American neoconservative movement and Marxist, is well known. He has a son still alive, named ***William Kristol who is the preemminent neoconservative living today along with Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dicky Pearle, Condi Rice, and Dick Cheney who founded a think tank that drew up invasion plans for Iraq long before 9/11 and that later advised George Bush. He is on Fox News almost daily discussing national policy and badmouthing Obama. He helped push, prod and poke that idiot Bush into a blundering war for reasons that had little to do with American safety but more with Middle Eastern issues. America was duped into Iraq instead of staying in Afghanistan where were should have been, because certain people wanted to secure that country as part of a larger plan; the neocons who advised him.
This is not the first time in history this was done and I can easily prove that if you like. Unlike you, I have history and documents to back up what I say. You provide little for the majority of your arguments but an opinion and conjecture. I always find it amazing that you can type as much as you do, and no one ever calls you out on proof. This "shift in meaning" is your idea. What you and perhaps a small number of people would like others to think neoconservative means now, when it means the same thing. That way, the Marxist beginnings of this movement and how these people with Marxist ideas got a hold of the White House and turned this country upside down in Iraq doesn't have to be probed. You don't seem to have anything but opinion pieces to claim that, and you haven't even given those really.
Where is your proof to what you claim above? Where is this mountain of evidence that neocon is a Jewish insult of some kind that is accepted as fact by the majority of people other than you and Zindahias? Again, a few crazies claiming this is now the "new neocon" is quite loopy, if a majority doesn't agree. It's just a small tinfoil hat crew while the majority of people choose to look at a real source; the beginning... marxist Irving Kristol who has a highly influential son, Bill, who works for Fox News and advised Reagan, Bush 1, Qualye, and Bush 2.
Down is up and up is down. People with Marxist leanings calling the elected President of the United States a socialist and a communist. Then yahoos are convinced he's un-American and the people pushing it are trustworthy, without knowing where any of them really come from, or their history. Yahoos get all riled up, start talking about teabagging, succession and revolution and the neocons hope to take everything over with all these stooge militia groups and "citizens" as a willing army. I mean, it's seriously the stuff of Tom Clancy novels.
Neoconservatism made Kristol clear. Great article showing the reason why neoconservatives keep trying to deny the Marxist link of their cause. --------------------------------------
***William Kristol is a political contributor for the FOX News Channel (FNC) and serves as a regular contributor to "Special Report with Brit Hume," the highest rated political program on cable television.
Kristol serves as editor and publisher of the Washington, D.C.-based political magazine, The Weekly Standard. Widely recognized as one of the nation's leading political analysts and commentators, Kristol regularly appears on all the major television public affairs shows.
Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the Bush administration and to Secretary of Education William Bennett under President Ronald Reagan. Before coming to Washington in 1985, Kristol taught politics at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
Before starting The Weekly Standard in 1995, Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory.
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.
Nope, you just wrote it rather crappily. Which is why I said I hope you made a typo.
Let's give the credit to those who truly deserve it.
I'm not horribly shocked by this. Many of the Republican PACs that supported him last election have made it clear they won't anymore with the way he's voted recently. Polls have shown that Republican voters in his constituency have not approved of most of his recent voting record, and the Republican most likely to challenge him in the Republican primary (Pat Toomey) leads significantly in a recent political poll.
I don't think Specter's decision to switch parties was so much an ideological one as simply playing the numbers. The odds were very much against his reelection as a Republican, and aligning with the Democrats provides him more political capital than going Independent. I very much doubt he'll change the way he votes, which means that the Democrats will probably be at odds with him once issues pop up in which he is considered more conservative (gun control, death penalty). I'm not sure the Democrats will be as filibuster-resistant as they'd hope with him on board, at least not for all issues.
Good point. I will restate, my problem with the word is the shift in meaning -- it has shifted so far from the original meaning taht it no longe has any real meaning.
Bush can't be a neo-con, he's been a conservative his whole life. Same with Cheney -- yet people call both of them neo-con. It is also used, by people like Pat Buchanan to mean EITHER Jewish conservative, OR Zionist conservative. IT is an epithet, plain and simple.
So you're claiming that because a goofball like Pat Buchanan misuses a term which he doesn't understand (if you say he's using "neocon" as a Jewish insult) makes the origins of the word and what it really means irrelevant? That's a pretty ridicoulous claim, even for you Fisher. Because one crackpot wants to call daytime "nighttime", in an attempt to make the meaning change doesn't mean the vast majority of the normal thinking population agrees.
Again, Irving Kristol, godfather of the American neoconservative movement and Marxist, is well known. He has a son still alive, named ***William Kristol who is the preemminent neoconservative living today along with Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dicky Pearle, Condi Rice, and Dick Cheney who founded a think tank that drew up invasion plans for Iraq long before 9/11 and that later advised George Bush. He is on Fox News almost daily discussing national policy and badmouthing Obama. He helped push, prod and poke that idiot Bush into a blundering war for reasons that had little to do with American safety but more with Middle Eastern issues. America was duped into Iraq instead of staying in Afghanistan where were should have been, because certain people wanted to secure that country as part of a larger plan; the neocons who advised him.
This is not the first time in history this was done and I can easily prove that if you like. Unlike you, I have history and documents to back up what I say. You provide little for the majority of your arguments but an opinion and conjecture. I always find it amazing that you can type as much as you do, and no one ever calls you out on proof. This "shift in meaning" is your idea. What you and perhaps a small number of people would like others to think neoconservative means now, when it means the same thing. That way, the Marxist beginnings of this movement and how these people with Marxist ideas got a hold of the White House and turned this country upside down in Iraq doesn't have to be probed. You don't seem to have anything but opinion pieces to claim that, and you haven't even given those really.
Where is your proof to what you claim above? Where is this mountain of evidence that neocon is a Jewish insult of some kind that is accepted as fact by the majority of people other than you and Zindahias? Again, a few crazies claiming this is now the "new neocon" is quite loopy, if a majority doesn't agree. It's just a small tinfoil hat crew while the majority of people choose to look at a real source; the beginning... marxist Irving Kristol who has a highly influential son, Bill, who works for Fox News and advised Reagan, Bush 1, Qualye, and Bush 2.
Down is up and up is down. People with Marxist leanings calling the elected President of the United States a socialist and a communist. Then yahoos are convinced he's un-American and the people pushing it are trustworthy, without knowing where any of them really come from, or their history. Yahoos get all riled up, start talking about teabagging, succession and revolution and the neocons hope to take everything over with all these stooge militia groups and "citizens" as a willing army. I mean, it's seriously the stuff of Tom Clancy novels.
***William Kristol is a political contributor for the FOX News Channel (FNC) and serves as a regular contributor to "Special Report with Brit Hume," the highest rated political program on cable television.
Kristol serves as editor and publisher of the Washington, D.C.-based political magazine, The Weekly Standard. Widely recognized as one of the nation's leading political analysts and commentators, Kristol regularly appears on all the major television public affairs shows.
Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the Bush administration and to Secretary of Education William Bennett under President Ronald Reagan. Before coming to Washington in 1985, Kristol taught politics at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
Before starting The Weekly Standard in 1995, Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory.
Karl Rove is a lifelong conservative. He is therefore not a neo-con. Same with Cheney, Bill Kristol, Or Condi Rice. Not sure if pearl was ever a marxist in his younger years, but if he WAS, he is a neo-con.
David Horowitz, PJ O'Roark, and IRVING Kristol, who were all liberals who later became conservatives are neo-cons.
that's using the classic understandable meaning of the word.
The other meaning is basically "hawkish conservatives" or "internationalist conservatives." That would mean someone who combines the humanitarian nature of the Old Left (since the new left is isolationist and protectionist, largely due to the influence in unions) with the traditional conservative belief in individual rights.
That definition is problematic, because I can't THINK of any conservatives who don't believe in American power or America as a superpower.
now, find me ONE real conservative using taht definition, other than Pat Buchanan.
Please give me names.
Kissinger? nope. backed Iraq.
name one. Please. You are very ready to cast your epithet at lifelong conservatives, but you have yet to name conservative who is NOT a "neo-con."
Please, illuminate me.
Now on to anti-semitism. I didn't say ONLY pat Buchanan "misuses" the term, I think MANY people on the LEFT and RIGHT do. He is merely the most well known anti-semite on the right who uses it. he is merely one of the only famous anti-semites who uses is.
Go to any neo-nazi website and see how often they use the term. Go to any right wing or left wing conspiracy site and see how the epithet is used. I will not put links to those hate sites on this website because I believe it is against the rules.
Would you agree it means "Zionist Conservative?" Aren't neo-cons beholden to the "Israel Lobby?"
I'm sorry, the word, which once had a simple meaning: former liberals (or trotskyites) who are now conservatives has given way to an epithet which sorta means: non-isolationists.
Sorry, non-isolationists have always been part of the conservative movement -- it is something taht EVERY idological group has been divided on. It is part of theheart and soul of America and a debate we have always had -- how involved in the rest of the world shall we be? It is a good question, worthy of discussion, one which casting epithets such as you keep doing helps no one.
Please, name me a "good" conservative IN YOUR BOOK.
last question: do you think 9-11 was an inside job?
David Horowitz, PJ O'Roark, and IRVING Kristol, who were all liberals who later became conservatives are neo-cons. that's using the classic understandable meaning of the word.
You are very ready to cast your epithet at lifelong conservatives, but you have yet to name conservative who is NOT a "neo-con."
Please, illuminate me.
Now on to anti-semitism.
Please, name me a "good" conservative IN YOUR BOOK.
last question: do you think 9-11 was an inside job?
1. Rove is a neocon. The fact that he is a conservative doesn't mean he's automatically excluded as you are suggesting. Ridicoulous premise. Kristol is the son of a Marxist. He espouses the same views as Daddy. You need to read his writings sometimes and look past the veil. It's quite plain and easy to check; he's on Fox News every other day. You guys have been getting fooled really, really badly. The "classic understandable meaning"?? Horsedoody. You and a tiny few think this, but it's common knowledge to anyone who reads on their own who and what a neocon is. I've listed those names in this thread and they were all people who were whispering in Bush's ear the last eight years, the fact that you refuse to believe it is the impasse. Let's just say we'll agree to disagree. It's beating a dead horse. I say they are, you say they aren't. But neocons have controlled the Republican party since the 1980s.
2. I refuse to discuss "anti-Semitism" anymore. You have tried to paint me as one earlier so what would that gain me? Fall into a poorly set trap? You and Zindaihais were the ones in this thread who interjected the idea that "neoconservative is code words for 'Anti-Semitic'", not I. So I will let you live with your shame for doing so. I tried to show you how it's impossible, when the man who STARTED the neoconservative movement and calls HIMSELF a neoconservative proudly to the world is Jewish, you and your forum friends played a despicable card. You guys can discuss that amongst yourselves from under your rocks from now on. It was damn slimy and its not the first time you've done it to posters in threads.
3. You want me to name a "good conservative" not a neocon? Heck, I'll name several unlike you and your teeny-tiny neocon list:
Chuck Hagel, Ed Rollins, David Gergen, Micheal Smirconish, Juan Williams (yes, he is a closet conservative), Steve Forbes, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, William Buckley, Tom Ridge, Charlie Christ, Newt Gingrich. I'm tired of naming but you get the idea. I guess you can only think of three neocons; one of which I gave you after you were the first person in this thread to ask that silly question, "Please define neocon?"- Irving Kristol.
4. 9/11? What the hell does 9/11 have to do with this thread or anything discussed in this topic? Why didn't you just ask me who's gonna win the World Series this year? Or who built Stonehenge? Which came first; the chicken or the egg? Or who I think Angelina Jolie will marry next? Or how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll pop? Seriously...... wtf?
Where was 9/11 brought up by anyone at all until you did twice in this thread? This is classic Fishermage.. deflection as an artform. Throw in something at the end of a post to deflect so he doesn't have to answer and at the same time, hijack the thread to his preferred topic. This is not the conspiracy thread. Go start your own. You lay some pretty poor internet traps, friend. You really have no shame, do you?
Posted by Fishermage previously in this thread:
So I guess you just mean Zionist conservatives, eh Popinjay?
the ones you think were secretly behind 9-11? Thee ones behind the banks?
Posted by Fishermage after the above:
No, merely saying that a large number of neo-cons are Jewish does not automatically make it anti-semitism. But when it is combined with saying they are Zionists, it might be.
Posted by Fishermage now:
Would you agree it means "Zionist Conservative?" Aren't neo-cons beholden to the "Israel Lobby?"
For the record, I never typed the word "Zionist" in this thread until just now. That was all you.
David Horowitz, PJ O'Roark, and IRVING Kristol, who were all liberals who later became conservatives are neo-cons.
that's using the classic understandable meaning of the word.
You are very ready to cast your epithet at lifelong conservatives, but you have yet to name conservative who is NOT a "neo-con."
Please, illuminate me. Now on to anti-semitism. Please, name me a "good" conservative IN YOUR BOOK.
last question: do you think 9-11 was an inside job?
1. Rove is a neocon. The fact that he is a conservative doesn't mean he's automatically excluded as you are suggesting. Ridicoulous premise. Kristol is the son of a Marxist. He espouses the same views as Daddy. You need to read his writings sometimes and look past the veil. It's quite plain and easy to check; he's on Fox News every other day. You guys have been getting fooled really, really badly. The "classic understandable meaning"?? Horsedoody. You and a tiny few think this, but it's common knowledge to anyone who reads on their own who and what a neocon is. I've listed those names in this thread and they were all people who were whispering in Bush's ear the last eight years, the fact that you refuse to believe it is the impasse. Let's just say we'll agree to disagree. It's beating a dead horse. I say they are, you say they aren't. But neocons have controlled the Republican party since the 1980s.
2. I refuse to discuss "anti-Semitism" anymore. You have tried to paint me as one earlier so what would that gain me? Fall into a poorly set trap? You and Zindaihais were the ones in this thread who interjected the idea that "neoconservative is code words for 'Anti-Semitic'", not I. So I will let you live with your shame for doing so. I tried to show you how it's impossible, when the man who STARTED the neoconservative movement and calls HIMSELF a neoconservative proudly to the world is Jewish, you and your forum friends played a despicable card. You guys can discuss that amongst yourselves from under your rocks from now on. It was damn slimy and its not the first time you've done it to posters in threads.
3. You want me to name a "good conservative" not a neocon? Heck, I'll name several unlike you and your teeny-tiny neocon list:
Chuck Hagel, Ed Rollins, David Gergen, Micheal Smirconish, Juan Williams (yes, he is a closet conservative), Steve Forbes, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, William Buckley, Tom Ridge, Charlie Christ, Newt Gingrich. I'm tired of naming but you get the idea. I guess you can only think of three neocons; one of which I gave you after you were the first person in this thread to ask that silly question, "Please define neocon?"- Irving Kristol.
4. 9/11? What the hell does 9/11 have to do with this thread or anything discussed in this topic? Why didn't you just ask me who's gonna win the World Series this year? Or who built Stonehenge? Which came first; the chicken or the egg? Or who I think Angelina Jolie will marry next? Or how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll pop? Seriously...... wtf?
Where was 9/11 brought up by anyone at all until you did twice in this thread? This is classic Fishermage.. deflection as an artform. Throw in something at the end of a post to deflect so he doesn't have to answer and at the same time, hijack the thread to his preferred topic. This is not the conspiracy thread. Go start your own. You lay some pretty poor internet traps, friend. You really have no shame, do you?
Posted by Fishermage previously in this thread:
So I guess you just mean Zionist conservatives, eh Popinjay?
the ones you think were secretly behind 9-11? Thee ones behind the banks?
Posted by Fishermage after the above:
No, merely saying that a large number of neo-cons are Jewish does not automatically make it anti-semitism. But when it is combined with saying they are Zionists, it might be.
Posted by Fishermage now:
Would you agree it means "Zionist Conservative?" Aren't neo-cons beholden to the "Israel Lobby?"
For the record, I never typed the word "Zionist" in this thread until just now. That was all you.
Fishermage, the forum terrorist.
1. So "Sons of Marxists" are neo-cons? Okayyyyyyy.
2. I am not "setting a trap," I want to know how you feel, yet you keep refusing to actually define your terms. Just attack, attack, attack.
3. Why are those people not neo-cons? What distinguishes them, in terms of policies, that makes then "true," "good," Or real conservatives. Seems you listed a few liberals there. How is Juan Williams a "closet conservative?" What policies make him so?
A person is not a definition, It shows a clear avoidance of being willing to make a definition. I can see you refuse to define your terms.
4. So you refuse to answer my question. Hmmmm. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. I wonder why you are so afraid to say "no."
YOU brought up Zionism when YOU gave the wikipedia entry. Now you are evading.
Forum terrorist? Interesting epithet. Someone catches you in your own evasions and bogus arguments, and they get a whole NEW epithet from you. I am beginning to understand you much better now.
1. So "Sons of Marxists" are neo-cons? Okayyyyyyy. 2. I am not "setting a trap," I want to know how you feel, yet you keep refusing to actually define your terms. Just attack, attack, attack. 3. Why are those people not neo-cons? What distinguishes them, in terms of policies, that makes then "true," "good," Or real conservatives. Seems you listed a few liberals there. How is Juan Williams a "closet conservative?" What policies make him so? A person is not a definition, It shows a clear avoidance of being willing to make a definition. I can see you refuse to define your terms. 4. So you refuse to answer my question. Hmmmm. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. I wonder why you are so afraid to say "no." YOU brought up Zionism when YOU gave the wikipedia entry. Now you are evading. Forum terrorist? Interesting epithet. Someone catches you in your own evasions and bogus arguments, and they get a whole NEW epithet from you. I am beginning to understand you much better now.
I said it before; keep posting. You are doing a great job.
You prefer to turn this thread into by your own hand-- Zionist. 9/11. Zionist. 9/11. Zionist. (yes, that's the LEAST amount of times it has slithered out of your mouth so far).
You let it slip through in the past enough, but now it's pretty clear. No one reading your stuff ever believes you are some kind of Independant. You spout off that language, then attempt to throw in the equivalent of "Hey guys.. I'm Jewish- so I'm above reproach..."
Posted by Fishermage earlier: I am also Jewish and Christian, so I suppose that makes me epithet-worthy no matter what i say though -- at least according to some on this forum.
...as some sort of disclaimer figuring it would give you the impunity to do so. Or we are just supposed to take that as gospel with no proof. Or that it would matter in the end anyways. Apparently, you love playing this card so much, that you felt you needed license in order to interject it into this thread. Irving Kristol being Jewish was brought up as a matter of fact from the links by me. Links which HAVE been proven to be correct. Nothing about it was blaming him or Jews for conspiracies.
This connection between anti-Semitism, Bush, Zionism and 9/11 was your doing. I've proven above you were the first person to mention Zionism by claiming I was saying it, when I said or described no such thing.
Then when another poster called you out on it because others could see you were playing the card, you tried to defend your baiting by saying that "but when it is combined with saying they are Zionists, it might be," when no one combined anything with the word Zionism until you yourself did it. It was clear to anyone I did not do that. I couldn't even find the "Z" key on my keyboard until you made me look for it.
Then you try and tie it into a neat, little, clever trap by getting me to fall for an old lawyer's trick:
Posted by Fishermage:"Would you agree it means "Zionist Conservative?" Aren't neo-cons beholden to the "Israel Lobby?"
If I didn't piece together your progession through this thread, I may have simply stated "yes" or "no", then would have been defending a point that either way, you would have claimed I was anti-Semitic for defending. Luckily I recognized "So, have you stopped beating your wife lately" type questions. Now your tactic is to infer I'm a chicken for not answering 9/11 questions of your choosing.
This ought to serve as a lesson for anyone responding to your nonsense. Don't answer YOUR questions. Just try and stay on point of the thread and don't let you pull the conversation down into the gutter with racial or religious accusations and inferences when Fisher can't defend it.
So no, I won't answer ALL the questions you deem relevant. This is not your conspiracy debunker thread. Go invent one. I'll prefer to debate the points. Keep your conservative fishing bait.
Then after someone does (since he doesn't know and is asking)--
Orignially posted by Fishermage:
So neo-con means "conservative."
Okay, name a conservative then whi is not a neo-con.
I see three of them are Jews. Does that have anything to do with your definition?
Note: No one identified three people as being Jewish except Fishermage.
Fishermage responds, after questioning what a neocon is, with his OWN idea of what it is:
Orignially posted by Fishermage:
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.
He later adds this gem, for no particular reason, other than to attempt to excuse later religion/race baiting:
Orignially posted by Fishermage:
I am also Jewish and Christian, so I suppose that makes me epithet-worthy no matter what i say though -- at least according to some on this forum.
Get over yourself; why post your race and religion? No one cares what your race and religious affiliations are. It's irrelevant to the thread.
Fishermage later says-
Orignially posted by Fishermage:
In other words, as I suspected, it is essentially a useless term, and only serves as an epithet. Thanks for proving my point.
Says this even though I point out the founder of the neconservative moment is Marxist and Jewish and is proud to consider himself a neoconservative and it's not an "epithet" to him. The man wrote two autobiographical books in which the title says "Reflections of a Neoconservative" and the like. Sure doesn't look like he's using an epithet on himself, does it?
Then the first openly race baiting accusation:
Orignially posted by Fishermage:
So, thw word is highly problematic. Seems like it is just a way to cloak one's antisemitism, eh Popinjay?
Then:
Orignially posted by Fishermage:
So I guess you just mean Zionist conservatives, eh Popinjay?
the ones you think were secretly behind 9-11? Thee ones behind the banks?
I'm not playing any "race" card -- YOU said many used to be Jewish liberals. YOU felt the need to mention that. THEN you presented us with wikipedia. I shared what wikipedia said.
Sorry that I caught you in your own web.
Oh, and Jewish is not a race. Do you feel Jews are a race, Popinjay? Hmmmm. I know a few people who feel that way.
This after he claims he's a Christian and Jewish. So let me get this straight.. you believe
Jesus Christ is your personal Lord and Savior and that anyone who doesn't believe that goes to Hell, and
Jesus Christ wasn't really God but just a wise teacher and there really is NO Hell?
Because if you are saying that Jewish is not a race, then you leave it as religion. Then you apparently believe in TWO religions because Jews don't believe Jesus Christ is God at all and there is no Hell. No wonder you post as contradictory as you do... you're a walking, human conundrum of ideological gobbledygook!
Then, in his usual sloppy manner he unknowingly identifies himself along with Pat Buchanan:
Orignially posted by Fishermage:
It is also used, by people like Pat Buchanan to mean EITHER Jewish conservative, OR Zionist conservative. IT is an epithet, plain and simple.
(if you recall above, Fishermage claimed he thinks neocon only means "Jewish Conservative")
After claiming over/over/over again that neoconservatism has only ONE meaning, a epithet, let's see how Fishermage finally finishes up, shall we?
Orignially posted by Fishermage:
that's using the classic understandable meaning of the word.
The other meaning is basically "hawkish conservatives" or "internationalist conservatives." That would mean someone who combines the humanitarian nature of the Old Left (since the new left is isolationist and protectionist, largely due to the influence in unions) with the traditional conservative belief in individual rights.
So after all of that, Fishermage finally admits there is more than one meaning other than "epithet". Classic conservative tactics. Deny, deflect and accuse until you get caught, then mitigate.
Comments
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?
And I'm sure you're really not that ignorant, you are simply pretending to not to understand what he is saying. He said the 1980s showed us why the New Deal did not work. He was contrasting FDR's New Deal policies of the 1930s to Ronald Reagan's policy of tax cuts and military spending of the 1980s. Got it now?
And one for you, because you missed it as well.
Oh, and NOW you like Steele, huh? Must be that foam that's now coming from the sides of his mouth that suddenly made him so attractive. Nothing like rabies for sheer animal magnetism, I guess.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Ah, thanks for that. I was looking for that earlier, but missed it. No question Specter saw the writing on the wall and made the jump. The path to re-election is not going to be a cakewalk as a Democrat. I can't see a former Republican suddenly endearing himself to all Democrats in Pennsylvania. But he's right when he thinks it will be easier for him as a Democrat than as a Republican.
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?
And I'm sure you're really not that ignorant, you are simply pretending to not to understand what he is saying. He said the 1980s showed us why the New Deal did not work. He was contrasting FDR's New Deal policies of the 1930s to Ronald Reagan's policy of tax cuts and military spending of the 1980s. Got it now?
And precisely what was the point in that?
That's like saying a financial purge didn't work in the 1980s as well. It made no sense to bring in a tactic that WASN'T used and say "This is why we didn't use it". Learn to read what's written, instead of imaging what he meant. He wrote that and until he clarifies it, it stands. Besides, duh.. the situation in the 1980s was not this bad. So the two most challenging times economically of the 20th century were the Great Depression and Bush's Regression, not the 80s.
He got the dates wrong I bet, just like you did earlier with the whole "neocon is a derogatory insult" thing when it wasn't, lmao.
"TO MICHAEL!"
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.
Merely saying that a large number of early neo-cons were Jewish is in no way being Anti- Semitic. Stupid if you think otherwise. By Saying you think it is you are pushing your own anti-semitism. You're the one to make the connection not Popinjay.
p.s. I would link the other posts but pyramids annoy me.
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
From the wikipedia source YOU gave me.
"Some of those identified as neoconservative reject the term, arguing that it lacks a coherent definition, or that it was coherent only in the context of the Cold War.
Conservative writer David Horowitz argues that the increasing use of the term neoconservative since the 2003 start of the Iraq War has made it irrelevant:[citation needed]
Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
The term may have lost meaning due to excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have been identified as leading neoconservatives despite the fact that they have been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has supported Irving Kristol's ideas).
Some critics reject the idea that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism. Traditional conservatives are skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term and dislike being associated with its stereotypes or supposed agendas. Columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."[48] Jonah Goldberg rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative."
See the bit in red? That means that what is written after it is irrelevent other than being a PERSONAL opinion. You cannot use un-cited sources in wikipedia as fact. Even some of the cited sources can be dubious due to some of the books out there.
I could cite a "fact" from Mein Kampf if I wanted to but it wouldn't necessarily be true.
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Threads like this make me hopeful for the zombie apocalypse. Just need to get my hands on some nice ARs and such before it all goes down.
Maybe a terminator style nuke war. Survival will bring you squabbling politicos together.
------------------
Originally posted by javac
well i'm 35 and have a PhD in science, and then 10 years experience in bioinformatics... you?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/218865/page/8
What i find amusing about this is the fact that Karl Marx himself was a Jew along with the almost half of the major figures in the Russian Revolution of 1917. After the revolution a good 25% of the politburo were Jewish. It was one of the things which gave National Socialism in Germany a fertile breeding ground.(and no I AM NOT ANTI SEMITIC)
The irony of the Neo-cons being founded by a Trotsky Communist is priceless. Especially when you think of the persecutions of the '50s. I thought Neo-cons hated state capitalism/communism with a passion :P
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Oh, and Jewish is not a race. Do you feel Jews are a race, Popinjay? Hmmmm. I know a few people who feel that way.
Earlier in the thread Fisher you say you are a Jewish Christian. How can you be of 2 seperate religious persuasions at the same time? You can't believe that Jesus saved us all as well as believe the teachings of Judaism as a religion. One must therefore presume that you are refering to yourself as a Jewish person who happens to be a Christian in their religious belief. Thus reinforcing the notion of a Jewish Race.
Here is a brief history of how Judaism turned into a race rather than just a religion.
www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16366
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
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.
Good point. I will restate, my problem with the word is the shift in meaning -- it has shifted so far from the original meaning taht it no longe has any real meaning.
Bush can't be a neo-con, he's been a conservative his whole life. Same with Cheney -- yet people call both of them neo-con. It is also used, by people like Pat Buchanan to mean EITHER Jewish conservative, OR Zionist conservative. IT is an epithet, plain and simple.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Bring it on Haz. Killing Zombies sounds FUN
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
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.
Merely saying that a large number of early neo-cons were Jewish is in no way being Anti- Semitic. Stupid if you think otherwise. By Saying you think it is you are pushing your own anti-semitism. You're the one to make the connection not Popinjay.
p.s. I would link the other posts but pyramids annoy me.
No, merely saying that a large number of neo-cons are Jewish does not automatically make it anti-semitism. But when it is combined with saying they are Zionists, it might be. I am not making the connection, other people have made the connection, and people like Pat BUchanan use it that way more openly.
I'm not making the connection, the source popinjay gave us is, wikipedia. It is am known controversey, something I feel we would be better served if we strayed away from.
fishermage.blogspot.com
From the wikipedia source YOU gave me.
"Some of those identified as neoconservative reject the term, arguing that it lacks a coherent definition, or that it was coherent only in the context of the Cold War.
Conservative writer David Horowitz argues that the increasing use of the term neoconservative since the 2003 start of the Iraq War has made it irrelevant:[citation needed]
Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
The term may have lost meaning due to excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have been identified as leading neoconservatives despite the fact that they have been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has supported Irving Kristol's ideas).
Some critics reject the idea that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism. Traditional conservatives are skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term and dislike being associated with its stereotypes or supposed agendas. Columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."[48] Jonah Goldberg rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative."
See the bit in red? That means that what is written after it is irrelevent other than being a PERSONAL opinion. You cannot use un-cited sources in wikipedia as fact. Even some of the cited sources can be dubious due to some of the books out there.
I could cite a "fact" from Mein Kampf if I wanted to but it wouldn't necessarily be true.
All definitions are nothing more than aggregates of usage -- ie, opinions.
I am highlighting the controversey over the term, and explaining how the meaning has shifted until now it means anything taht the individual using it hates.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Oh, and Jewish is not a race. Do you feel Jews are a race, Popinjay? Hmmmm. I know a few people who feel that way.
Earlier in the thread Fisher you say you are a Jewish Christian. How can you be of 2 seperate religious persuasions at the same time? You can't believe that Jesus saved us all as well as believe the teachings of Judaism as a religion. One must therefore presume that you are refering to yourself as a Jewish person who happens to be a Christian in their religious belief. Thus reinforcing the notion of a Jewish Race.
Here is a brief history of how Judaism turned into a race rather than just a religion.
www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16366
Easy, the same way that Paul was a Jewish Christian and so was Peter, so was James. NONE of them stopped being jews when they accepted Jesus as messiah. Much of the New testament is filled with the discussion of how does one deal with GENTILE Christians, and whether the ld Jewish religius traditions need to still be practiced. No one changed their religion. They merely felt they were continuing their religion in a more full way with Christ.
I was raised a Jew and I have accepted Jesus as messiah. That makes me what is known as a Messianic Jew. Christianity is not a separate religion from Judaiism -- it is a continuation. In the BIble, Christians call themselves "Israel" meaning Jewish.
Judaism is not a race. It is a religion.
EDIT: One can argue that Jew is an ethnoreligious group, but that doesn't make it a race. Those early zionists (as well as earlier anti-semites) and modern people, who called it such were wrong.
Arab is not a race either. It is an ethnic group, technically an ethnolinguistic group. Not a race.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Bring it on Haz. Killing Zombies sounds FUN
I'm hoping the swine flu mutates to create some sort of human/pig/zombie hybrid.
I've been playing a lot of L4D to get ready.
The Official God FAQ
He did state he was mainly doing it because after viewing polls he saw no chance of being reelected as a Republican.
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?
And I'm sure you're really not that ignorant, you are simply pretending to not to understand what he is saying. He said the 1980s showed us why the New Deal did not work. He was contrasting FDR's New Deal policies of the 1930s to Ronald Reagan's policy of tax cuts and military spending of the 1980s. Got it now?
And precisely what was the point in that?
That's like saying a financial purge didn't work in the 1980s as well. It made no sense to bring in a tactic that WASN'T used and say "This is why we didn't use it". Learn to read what's written, instead of imaging what he meant. He wrote that and until he clarifies it, it stands. Besides, duh.. the situation in the 1980s was not this bad. So the two most challenging times economically of the 20th century were the Great Depression and Bush's Regression, not the 80s.
He got the dates wrong I bet, just like you did earlier with the whole "neocon is a derogatory insult" thing when it wasn't, lmao.
I think you misread that opening paragraph. Ofcourse they did not try the New Deal in the 1980s. It should have been obvious it was a comparison. The current recession we are in is no where near the recession in the late 1970's after the Vietnam War, over 10% unemployment and inflation. We aren't there yet. In comparison to 1929, the situation with the collapse of Wallstreet was very similiar to the banking problems in the late 1970's. The only difference is how each president handled it. However, I would say the main culprit behind both recessions has been government intervention. In 1929 a result of the Feds alteration backlashing, and in the late 1970's the results of Nixon and Carter.
So you're claiming that because a goofball like Pat Buchanan misuses a term which he doesn't understand (if you say he's using "neocon" as a Jewish insult) makes the origins of the word and what it really means irrelevant? That's a pretty ridicoulous claim, even for you Fisher. Because one crackpot wants to call daytime "nighttime", in an attempt to make the meaning change doesn't mean the vast majority of the normal thinking population agrees.
Again, Irving Kristol, godfather of the American neoconservative movement and Marxist, is well known. He has a son still alive, named ***William Kristol who is the preemminent neoconservative living today along with Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dicky Pearle, Condi Rice, and Dick Cheney who founded a think tank that drew up invasion plans for Iraq long before 9/11 and that later advised George Bush. He is on Fox News almost daily discussing national policy and badmouthing Obama. He helped push, prod and poke that idiot Bush into a blundering war for reasons that had little to do with American safety but more with Middle Eastern issues. America was duped into Iraq instead of staying in Afghanistan where were should have been, because certain people wanted to secure that country as part of a larger plan; the neocons who advised him.
This is not the first time in history this was done and I can easily prove that if you like. Unlike you, I have history and documents to back up what I say. You provide little for the majority of your arguments but an opinion and conjecture. I always find it amazing that you can type as much as you do, and no one ever calls you out on proof. This "shift in meaning" is your idea. What you and perhaps a small number of people would like others to think neoconservative means now, when it means the same thing. That way, the Marxist beginnings of this movement and how these people with Marxist ideas got a hold of the White House and turned this country upside down in Iraq doesn't have to be probed. You don't seem to have anything but opinion pieces to claim that, and you haven't even given those really.
Where is your proof to what you claim above? Where is this mountain of evidence that neocon is a Jewish insult of some kind that is accepted as fact by the majority of people other than you and Zindahias? Again, a few crazies claiming this is now the "new neocon" is quite loopy, if a majority doesn't agree. It's just a small tinfoil hat crew while the majority of people choose to look at a real source; the beginning... marxist Irving Kristol who has a highly influential son, Bill, who works for Fox News and advised Reagan, Bush 1, Qualye, and Bush 2.
Down is up and up is down. People with Marxist leanings calling the elected President of the United States a socialist and a communist. Then yahoos are convinced he's un-American and the people pushing it are trustworthy, without knowing where any of them really come from, or their history. Yahoos get all riled up, start talking about teabagging, succession and revolution and the neocons hope to take everything over with all these stooge militia groups and "citizens" as a willing army. I mean, it's seriously the stuff of Tom Clancy novels.
Neoconservatism made Kristol clear. Great article showing the reason why neoconservatives keep trying to deny the Marxist link of their cause.
--------------------------------------
***William Kristol is a political contributor for the FOX News Channel (FNC) and serves as a regular contributor to "Special Report with Brit Hume," the highest rated political program on cable television.
Kristol serves as editor and publisher of the Washington, D.C.-based political magazine, The Weekly Standard. Widely recognized as one of the nation's leading political analysts and commentators, Kristol regularly appears on all the major television public affairs shows.
Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the Bush administration and to Secretary of Education William Bennett under President Ronald Reagan. Before coming to Washington in 1985, Kristol taught politics at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
Before starting The Weekly Standard in 1995, Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Nope, you just wrote it rather crappily. Which is why I said I hope you made a typo.
Let's give the credit to those who truly deserve it.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I'm not horribly shocked by this. Many of the Republican PACs that supported him last election have made it clear they won't anymore with the way he's voted recently. Polls have shown that Republican voters in his constituency have not approved of most of his recent voting record, and the Republican most likely to challenge him in the Republican primary (Pat Toomey) leads significantly in a recent political poll.
I don't think Specter's decision to switch parties was so much an ideological one as simply playing the numbers. The odds were very much against his reelection as a Republican, and aligning with the Democrats provides him more political capital than going Independent. I very much doubt he'll change the way he votes, which means that the Democrats will probably be at odds with him once issues pop up in which he is considered more conservative (gun control, death penalty). I'm not sure the Democrats will be as filibuster-resistant as they'd hope with him on board, at least not for all issues.
So you're claiming that because a goofball like Pat Buchanan misuses a term which he doesn't understand (if you say he's using "neocon" as a Jewish insult) makes the origins of the word and what it really means irrelevant? That's a pretty ridicoulous claim, even for you Fisher. Because one crackpot wants to call daytime "nighttime", in an attempt to make the meaning change doesn't mean the vast majority of the normal thinking population agrees.
Again, Irving Kristol, godfather of the American neoconservative movement and Marxist, is well known. He has a son still alive, named ***William Kristol who is the preemminent neoconservative living today along with Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dicky Pearle, Condi Rice, and Dick Cheney who founded a think tank that drew up invasion plans for Iraq long before 9/11 and that later advised George Bush. He is on Fox News almost daily discussing national policy and badmouthing Obama. He helped push, prod and poke that idiot Bush into a blundering war for reasons that had little to do with American safety but more with Middle Eastern issues. America was duped into Iraq instead of staying in Afghanistan where were should have been, because certain people wanted to secure that country as part of a larger plan; the neocons who advised him.
This is not the first time in history this was done and I can easily prove that if you like. Unlike you, I have history and documents to back up what I say. You provide little for the majority of your arguments but an opinion and conjecture. I always find it amazing that you can type as much as you do, and no one ever calls you out on proof. This "shift in meaning" is your idea. What you and perhaps a small number of people would like others to think neoconservative means now, when it means the same thing. That way, the Marxist beginnings of this movement and how these people with Marxist ideas got a hold of the White House and turned this country upside down in Iraq doesn't have to be probed. You don't seem to have anything but opinion pieces to claim that, and you haven't even given those really.
Where is your proof to what you claim above? Where is this mountain of evidence that neocon is a Jewish insult of some kind that is accepted as fact by the majority of people other than you and Zindahias? Again, a few crazies claiming this is now the "new neocon" is quite loopy, if a majority doesn't agree. It's just a small tinfoil hat crew while the majority of people choose to look at a real source; the beginning... marxist Irving Kristol who has a highly influential son, Bill, who works for Fox News and advised Reagan, Bush 1, Qualye, and Bush 2.
Down is up and up is down. People with Marxist leanings calling the elected President of the United States a socialist and a communist. Then yahoos are convinced he's un-American and the people pushing it are trustworthy, without knowing where any of them really come from, or their history. Yahoos get all riled up, start talking about teabagging, succession and revolution and the neocons hope to take everything over with all these stooge militia groups and "citizens" as a willing army. I mean, it's seriously the stuff of Tom Clancy novels.
Neoconservatism made Kristol clear. Great article showing the reason why neoconservatives keep trying to deny the Marxist link of their cause.
--------------------------------------
***William Kristol is a political contributor for the FOX News Channel (FNC) and serves as a regular contributor to "Special Report with Brit Hume," the highest rated political program on cable television.
Kristol serves as editor and publisher of the Washington, D.C.-based political magazine, The Weekly Standard. Widely recognized as one of the nation's leading political analysts and commentators, Kristol regularly appears on all the major television public affairs shows.
Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the Bush administration and to Secretary of Education William Bennett under President Ronald Reagan. Before coming to Washington in 1985, Kristol taught politics at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
Before starting The Weekly Standard in 1995, Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory.
Karl Rove is a lifelong conservative. He is therefore not a neo-con. Same with Cheney, Bill Kristol, Or Condi Rice. Not sure if pearl was ever a marxist in his younger years, but if he WAS, he is a neo-con.
David Horowitz, PJ O'Roark, and IRVING Kristol, who were all liberals who later became conservatives are neo-cons.
that's using the classic understandable meaning of the word.
The other meaning is basically "hawkish conservatives" or "internationalist conservatives." That would mean someone who combines the humanitarian nature of the Old Left (since the new left is isolationist and protectionist, largely due to the influence in unions) with the traditional conservative belief in individual rights.
That definition is problematic, because I can't THINK of any conservatives who don't believe in American power or America as a superpower.
now, find me ONE real conservative using taht definition, other than Pat Buchanan.
Please give me names.
Kissinger? nope. backed Iraq.
name one. Please. You are very ready to cast your epithet at lifelong conservatives, but you have yet to name conservative who is NOT a "neo-con."
Please, illuminate me.
Now on to anti-semitism. I didn't say ONLY pat Buchanan "misuses" the term, I think MANY people on the LEFT and RIGHT do. He is merely the most well known anti-semite on the right who uses it. he is merely one of the only famous anti-semites who uses is.
Go to any neo-nazi website and see how often they use the term. Go to any right wing or left wing conspiracy site and see how the epithet is used. I will not put links to those hate sites on this website because I believe it is against the rules.
Would you agree it means "Zionist Conservative?" Aren't neo-cons beholden to the "Israel Lobby?"
I'm sorry, the word, which once had a simple meaning: former liberals (or trotskyites) who are now conservatives has given way to an epithet which sorta means: non-isolationists.
Sorry, non-isolationists have always been part of the conservative movement -- it is something taht EVERY idological group has been divided on. It is part of theheart and soul of America and a debate we have always had -- how involved in the rest of the world shall we be? It is a good question, worthy of discussion, one which casting epithets such as you keep doing helps no one.
Please, name me a "good" conservative IN YOUR BOOK.
last question: do you think 9-11 was an inside job?
fishermage.blogspot.com
1. Rove is a neocon. The fact that he is a conservative doesn't mean he's automatically excluded as you are suggesting. Ridicoulous premise. Kristol is the son of a Marxist. He espouses the same views as Daddy. You need to read his writings sometimes and look past the veil. It's quite plain and easy to check; he's on Fox News every other day. You guys have been getting fooled really, really badly. The "classic understandable meaning"?? Horsedoody. You and a tiny few think this, but it's common knowledge to anyone who reads on their own who and what a neocon is. I've listed those names in this thread and they were all people who were whispering in Bush's ear the last eight years, the fact that you refuse to believe it is the impasse. Let's just say we'll agree to disagree. It's beating a dead horse. I say they are, you say they aren't. But neocons have controlled the Republican party since the 1980s.
2. I refuse to discuss "anti-Semitism" anymore. You have tried to paint me as one earlier so what would that gain me? Fall into a poorly set trap? You and Zindaihais were the ones in this thread who interjected the idea that "neoconservative is code words for 'Anti-Semitic'", not I. So I will let you live with your shame for doing so. I tried to show you how it's impossible, when the man who STARTED the neoconservative movement and calls HIMSELF a neoconservative proudly to the world is Jewish, you and your forum friends played a despicable card. You guys can discuss that amongst yourselves from under your rocks from now on. It was damn slimy and its not the first time you've done it to posters in threads.
3. You want me to name a "good conservative" not a neocon? Heck, I'll name several unlike you and your teeny-tiny neocon list:
Chuck Hagel, Ed Rollins, David Gergen, Micheal Smirconish, Juan Williams (yes, he is a closet conservative), Steve Forbes, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, William Buckley, Tom Ridge, Charlie Christ, Newt Gingrich. I'm tired of naming but you get the idea. I guess you can only think of three neocons; one of which I gave you after you were the first person in this thread to ask that silly question, "Please define neocon?"- Irving Kristol.
4. 9/11? What the hell does 9/11 have to do with this thread or anything discussed in this topic? Why didn't you just ask me who's gonna win the World Series this year? Or who built Stonehenge? Which came first; the chicken or the egg? Or who I think Angelina Jolie will marry next? Or how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll pop? Seriously...... wtf?
Where was 9/11 brought up by anyone at all until you did twice in this thread? This is classic Fishermage.. deflection as an artform. Throw in something at the end of a post to deflect so he doesn't have to answer and at the same time, hijack the thread to his preferred topic. This is not the conspiracy thread. Go start your own. You lay some pretty poor internet traps, friend. You really have no shame, do you?
For the record, I never typed the word "Zionist" in this thread until just now. That was all you.
Fishermage, the forum terrorist.
"TO MICHAEL!"
1. Rove is a neocon. The fact that he is a conservative doesn't mean he's automatically excluded as you are suggesting. Ridicoulous premise. Kristol is the son of a Marxist. He espouses the same views as Daddy. You need to read his writings sometimes and look past the veil. It's quite plain and easy to check; he's on Fox News every other day. You guys have been getting fooled really, really badly. The "classic understandable meaning"?? Horsedoody. You and a tiny few think this, but it's common knowledge to anyone who reads on their own who and what a neocon is. I've listed those names in this thread and they were all people who were whispering in Bush's ear the last eight years, the fact that you refuse to believe it is the impasse. Let's just say we'll agree to disagree. It's beating a dead horse. I say they are, you say they aren't. But neocons have controlled the Republican party since the 1980s.
2. I refuse to discuss "anti-Semitism" anymore. You have tried to paint me as one earlier so what would that gain me? Fall into a poorly set trap? You and Zindaihais were the ones in this thread who interjected the idea that "neoconservative is code words for 'Anti-Semitic'", not I. So I will let you live with your shame for doing so. I tried to show you how it's impossible, when the man who STARTED the neoconservative movement and calls HIMSELF a neoconservative proudly to the world is Jewish, you and your forum friends played a despicable card. You guys can discuss that amongst yourselves from under your rocks from now on. It was damn slimy and its not the first time you've done it to posters in threads.
3. You want me to name a "good conservative" not a neocon? Heck, I'll name several unlike you and your teeny-tiny neocon list:
Chuck Hagel, Ed Rollins, David Gergen, Micheal Smirconish, Juan Williams (yes, he is a closet conservative), Steve Forbes, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, William Buckley, Tom Ridge, Charlie Christ, Newt Gingrich. I'm tired of naming but you get the idea. I guess you can only think of three neocons; one of which I gave you after you were the first person in this thread to ask that silly question, "Please define neocon?"- Irving Kristol.
4. 9/11? What the hell does 9/11 have to do with this thread or anything discussed in this topic? Why didn't you just ask me who's gonna win the World Series this year? Or who built Stonehenge? Which came first; the chicken or the egg? Or who I think Angelina Jolie will marry next? Or how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll pop? Seriously...... wtf?
Where was 9/11 brought up by anyone at all until you did twice in this thread? This is classic Fishermage.. deflection as an artform. Throw in something at the end of a post to deflect so he doesn't have to answer and at the same time, hijack the thread to his preferred topic. This is not the conspiracy thread. Go start your own. You lay some pretty poor internet traps, friend. You really have no shame, do you?
For the record, I never typed the word "Zionist" in this thread until just now. That was all you.
Fishermage, the forum terrorist.
1. So "Sons of Marxists" are neo-cons? Okayyyyyyy.
2. I am not "setting a trap," I want to know how you feel, yet you keep refusing to actually define your terms. Just attack, attack, attack.
3. Why are those people not neo-cons? What distinguishes them, in terms of policies, that makes then "true," "good," Or real conservatives. Seems you listed a few liberals there. How is Juan Williams a "closet conservative?" What policies make him so?
A person is not a definition, It shows a clear avoidance of being willing to make a definition. I can see you refuse to define your terms.
4. So you refuse to answer my question. Hmmmm. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. I wonder why you are so afraid to say "no."
YOU brought up Zionism when YOU gave the wikipedia entry. Now you are evading.
Forum terrorist? Interesting epithet. Someone catches you in your own evasions and bogus arguments, and they get a whole NEW epithet from you. I am beginning to understand you much better now.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I said it before; keep posting. You are doing a great job.
You prefer to turn this thread into by your own hand-- Zionist. 9/11. Zionist. 9/11. Zionist. (yes, that's the LEAST amount of times it has slithered out of your mouth so far).
You let it slip through in the past enough, but now it's pretty clear. No one reading your stuff ever believes you are some kind of Independant. You spout off that language, then attempt to throw in the equivalent of "Hey guys.. I'm Jewish- so I'm above reproach..."
...as some sort of disclaimer figuring it would give you the impunity to do so. Or we are just supposed to take that as gospel with no proof. Or that it would matter in the end anyways. Apparently, you love playing this card so much, that you felt you needed license in order to interject it into this thread. Irving Kristol being Jewish was brought up as a matter of fact from the links by me. Links which HAVE been proven to be correct. Nothing about it was blaming him or Jews for conspiracies.This connection between anti-Semitism, Bush, Zionism and 9/11 was your doing. I've proven above you were the first person to mention Zionism by claiming I was saying it, when I said or described no such thing.
Then when another poster called you out on it because others could see you were playing the card, you tried to defend your baiting by saying that "but when it is combined with saying they are Zionists, it might be," when no one combined anything with the word Zionism until you yourself did it. It was clear to anyone I did not do that. I couldn't even find the "Z" key on my keyboard until you made me look for it.
Then you try and tie it into a neat, little, clever trap by getting me to fall for an old lawyer's trick:
If I didn't piece together your progession through this thread, I may have simply stated "yes" or "no", then would have been defending a point that either way, you would have claimed I was anti-Semitic for defending. Luckily I recognized "So, have you stopped beating your wife lately" type questions. Now your tactic is to infer I'm a chicken for not answering 9/11 questions of your choosing.This ought to serve as a lesson for anyone responding to your nonsense. Don't answer YOUR questions. Just try and stay on point of the thread and don't let you pull the conversation down into the gutter with racial or religious accusations and inferences when Fisher can't defend it.
So no, I won't answer ALL the questions you deem relevant. This is not your conspiracy debunker thread. Go invent one. I'll prefer to debate the points. Keep your conservative fishing bait.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Timeline of Fishermage's ideals in this thread.
Note: No one identified three people as being Jewish except Fishermage.Then after someone does (since he doesn't know and is asking)--
He later adds this gem, for no particular reason, other than to attempt to excuse later religion/race baiting:Fishermage responds, after questioning what a neocon is, with his OWN idea of what it is:
Get over yourself; why post your race and religion? No one cares what your race and religious affiliations are. It's irrelevant to the thread.
Fishermage later says-
Says this even though I point out the founder of the neconservative moment is Marxist and Jewish and is proud to consider himself a neoconservative and it's not an "epithet" to him. The man wrote two autobiographical books in which the title says "Reflections of a Neoconservative" and the like. Sure doesn't look like he's using an epithet on himself, does it?Then the first openly race baiting accusation:
Then:
This after he claims he's a Christian and Jewish. So let me get this straight.. you believe- Jesus Christ is your personal Lord and Savior and that anyone who doesn't believe that goes to Hell, and
- Jesus Christ wasn't really God but just a wise teacher and there really is NO Hell?
Because if you are saying that Jewish is not a race, then you leave it as religion. Then you apparently believe in TWO religions because Jews don't believe Jesus Christ is God at all and there is no Hell. No wonder you post as contradictory as you do... you're a walking, human conundrum of ideological gobbledygook!Then, in his usual sloppy manner he unknowingly identifies himself along with Pat Buchanan:
(if you recall above, Fishermage claimed he thinks neocon only means "Jewish Conservative")After claiming over/over/over again that neoconservatism has only ONE meaning, a epithet, let's see how Fishermage finally finishes up, shall we?
So after all of that, Fishermage finally admits there is more than one meaning other than "epithet". Classic conservative tactics. Deny, deflect and accuse until you get caught, then mitigate.
Independant liberal my ass.
"TO MICHAEL!"