Are there USMB conservative Republicans who DISLIKE the Tea Bagger/Partier movement?

[Rocky Top Lady]

Do you wax your chest? Or, do you use Nair? Or, you just haven't gotten any chest hair yet?

Just curious.

 

[bodecea]

Honestly I don't know much about the movement, other than it drives libs totally and completely batshit. So, yeah. I like it.

I was told that there were liberals in the Tea Party movement too....are you saying that is incorrect?

 

[Immanuel]

I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier issue because a poster labeled one of America's civil rights leaders as a bigot. I am not sure, but I may have been pulled into the Tea Bagger/Partier thing because I am an Independent.

Regardless, I have yet to recognize a conservative Republican who has spoke out against the Tea Baggers/Partiers. If you are out there this thread is for you. I know I would like to know what you think.

Do I have to be Republican to answer this? Will ex-Republican suffice?

I would have to say that I agree a lot with RadiomanATL about the movement. The ideas are decent, but from everything I can tell those ideas are just ink on paper. The movement (in my humble opinion) seems to promote Republicanism rather than fiscal responsibility.

So, do I dislike the movement? Yes, because they seem to be along the same lines as ACORN (Oh shit, am I going to hear about this!) rather than a movement promoting fiscal responsibility.

Oh, I do have a slight problem though, I seem to be going through an identity crisis. I'm no longer 100% certain that I am conservative anymore. When I listen to those who purport to be conservative, I find myself thinking WTF? more often than not lately. I'm not liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes I simply can't figure out where some of those conservatives come up with what the say.

Immie

 

[Si modo]

I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier issue because a poster labeled one of America's civil rights leaders as a bigot. I am not sure, but I may have been pulled into the Tea Bagger/Partier thing because I am an Independent.

Regardless, I have yet to recognize a conservative Republican who has spoke out against the Tea Baggers/Partiers. If you are out there this thread is for you. I know I would like to know what you think.

Do I have to be Republican to answer this? Will ex-Republican suffice?

I would have to say that I agree a lot with RadiomanATL about the movement. The ideas are decent, but from everything I can tell those ideas are just ink on paper. The movement (in my humble opinion) seems to promote Republicanism rather than fiscal responsibility.

Oh, I do have a slight problem though, I seem to be going through an identity crisis. I'm no longer 100% certain that I am conservative anymore. When I listen to those who purport to be conservative, I find myself thinking WTF? more often than not lately. I'm not liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes I simply can't figure out where some of those conservatives come up with what the say.

Immie

It helps me to know that the words liberal and conservative are both skewed from their original polital meaning and too broad.

I am fiscally conservative. I am socially liberal. So, I piss off both the left and the right (as if the left and/or the right has any specific meaning, either, here). I piss off libertarians because I am not conservative on defense spending.

It's a a pain in the ass not being able to pin a label on myself. (Neocon comes close. Oh NO!. I said neocon.)

 

[Immanuel]

I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier issue because a poster labeled one of America's civil rights leaders as a bigot. I am not sure, but I may have been pulled into the Tea Bagger/Partier thing because I am an Independent.

Regardless, I have yet to recognize a conservative Republican who has spoke out against the Tea Baggers/Partiers. If you are out there this thread is for you. I know I would like to know what you think.

Do I have to be Republican to answer this? Will ex-Republican suffice?

I would have to say that I agree a lot with RadiomanATL about the movement. The ideas are decent, but from everything I can tell those ideas are just ink on paper. The movement (in my humble opinion) seems to promote Republicanism rather than fiscal responsibility.

Oh, I do have a slight problem though, I seem to be going through an identity crisis. I'm no longer 100% certain that I am conservative anymore. When I listen to those who purport to be conservative, I find myself thinking WTF? more often than not lately. I'm not liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes I simply can't figure out where some of those conservatives come up with what the say.

Immie

It helps me to know that the words liberal and conservative are both skewed from their original polital meaning and too broad.

I am fiscally conservative. I am socially liberal. So, I piss off both the left and the right (as if the left and/or the right has any specific meaning, either, here). I piss off libertarians because I am not conservative on defense spending.

It's a a pain in the ass not being able to pin a label on myself. (Neocon comes close. Oh NO!. I said neocon.)

The Neo-cons are the reason I don't want to be associated with conservatism anymore. "Compassionate Conservative" my ass!

But, I don't have a problem with your postings... at least not all that often. In fact, I can't think of any times that I have been bothered by your posts.

Immie

 

[Si modo]

Do I have to be Republican to answer this? Will ex-Republican suffice?

I would have to say that I agree a lot with RadiomanATL about the movement. The ideas are decent, but from everything I can tell those ideas are just ink on paper. The movement (in my humble opinion) seems to promote Republicanism rather than fiscal responsibility.

Oh, I do have a slight problem though, I seem to be going through an identity crisis. I'm no longer 100% certain that I am conservative anymore. When I listen to those who purport to be conservative, I find myself thinking WTF? more often than not lately. I'm not liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes I simply can't figure out where some of those conservatives come up with what the say.

Immie

It helps me to know that the words liberal and conservative are both skewed from their original polital meaning and too broad.

I am fiscally conservative. I am socially liberal. So, I piss off both the left and the right (as if the left and/or the right has any specific meaning, either, here). I piss off libertarians because I am not conservative on defense spending.

It's a a pain in the ass not being able to pin a label on myself. (Neocon comes close. Oh NO!. I said neocon.)

The Neo-cons are the reason I don't want to be associated with conservatism anymore. "Compassionate Conservative" my ass!

But, I don't have a problem with your postings... at least not all that often. In fact, I can't think of any times that I have been bothered by your posts.

Immie

Compassionate? Me? Nah.

 

[Immanuel]

It helps me to know that the words liberal and conservative are both skewed from their original polital meaning and too broad.

I am fiscally conservative. I am socially liberal. So, I piss off both the left and the right (as if the left and/or the right has any specific meaning, either, here). I piss off libertarians because I am not conservative on defense spending.

It's a a pain in the ass not being able to pin a label on myself. (Neocon comes close. Oh NO!. I said neocon.)

The Neo-cons are the reason I don't want to be associated with conservatism anymore. "Compassionate Conservative" my ass!

But, I don't have a problem with your postings... at least not all that often. In fact, I can't think of any times that I have been bothered by your posts.

Immie

Compassionate? Me? Nah.

Actually, I was thinking of the man who claimed to be a compassionate conservative and was found out to be a neo-con. Or rather the puppet of neo-cons.

Immie

 

[Si modo]

The Neo-cons are the reason I don't want to be associated with conservatism anymore. "Compassionate Conservative" my ass!

But, I don't have a problem with your postings... at least not all that often. In fact, I can't think of any times that I have been bothered by your posts.

Immie

Compassionate? Me? Nah.

Actually, I was thinking of the man who claimed to be a compassionate conservative and was found out to be a neo-con. Or rather the puppet of neo-cons.

Immie

Bush ended up being a fail of a neocon. He played the role for a while, though.

 

[Immanuel]

Compassionate? Me? Nah.

Actually, I was thinking of the man who claimed to be a compassionate conservative and was found out to be a neo-con. Or rather the puppet of neo-cons.

Immie

Bush ended up being a fail of a neocon. He played the role for a while, though.

I suppose he screwed up the idea of Neo-con, much as he screwed up the ideas of compassion and conservatism.

But, I'm no fan of what I have read about the neo-conservative movement, so, I must be looking at if from a slightly partisan view.

Immie

 

[manu1959]

SSSSSHHHHHH!

hes just fine

You old perv...

Kids can be cute.

that is what the dude from the vatican said....

 

[geauxtohell]

It's a a pain in the ass not being able to pin a label on myself. (Neocon comes close. Oh NO!. I said neocon.)

Seriously? You are hip with using American military force to spread democracy?

Bush ended up being a fail of a neocon. He played the role for a while, though.

Well, yeah. Initially he surrounded himself with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other people who had contributed to academic thought in line with "neo-con" principles. He moved away from them (and fired them) when he realized how asinine their political science theories were.

It's too bad. I truly think Bush would have been a great president if he had surrounded himself with better people.

 

[Si modo]

It's a a pain in the ass not being able to pin a label on myself. (Neocon comes close. Oh NO!. I said neocon.)

Seriously? You are hip with using American military force to spread democracy?
....

Yes. Absolutely. But, of course, with the obvious caveat (see below) the neocons specify (but others seem to ignore conveniently). And, the reasoning behind it is quite sound, in my opinion. That reasoning is related to foreign relations.

Historically, we do not war with democracies, nor do we have dangerously sour relations with them. In fact, we have the most fair trade agreements with democracies. In the context of the modern world - globalism, realtime communications, etc. - it in our best interest (and that is fundamentally what drives all foreign relations) to promote democracy elsewhere.

Now, the neocon caveat with using the military to promote democracy elsewhere is that it is used AFTER diplomacy has failed.

Without getting too long-winded, that's a general view on that point.

 

[Si modo]

I bet others feel all dirty that they have agreed with a *gasp* neocon in the past.

 

[geauxtohell]

It's a a pain in the ass not being able to pin a label on myself. (Neocon comes close. Oh NO!. I said neocon.)

Seriously? You are hip with using American military force to spread democracy?
....

Yes. Absolutely. But, of course, with the obvious caveat (see below)the neocons specify (but others seem to conveniently ignore). And, the reasoning behind it is quite sound, in my opinion. That reasoning is related to foreign relations.

Historically, we do not war with democracies, nor do we have dangerously sour relations with them. In fact, we have the most fair trade agreements with democracies. In the context of the modern world - globalism, realtime communications, etc. - it in our best interest (and that is fundamentally what drives all foreign relations) to promote democracy elsewhere.

Now, the neocon caveat with using the military to promote democracy elsewhere is that it is used AFTER diplomacy has failed.

Wow.

I respect your opinion. I just couldn't agree more about the legal and just application of military force.

I took an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I did not take an oath to spread democracy to other nations who may or may not be willing to uphold their end of the deal even after diplomacy fails.

No one else in the military did either. I suggest if we are going to adopt this as the official role of our military, the only fair thing to do is to give every service member the chance to leave with an honorable discharge or to stay in under the new terms of service.

I certainly had and have no interest in spreading democracy. Other nation's liberty is not worth my life.

 

[Immanuel]

I bet others feel all dirty that they have agreed with a *gasp* neocon in the past.

Damn straight I do!

I think I'll go take a shower right now, just to get the muck off of me!

Immie

 

[Si modo]

Seriously? You are hip with using American military force to spread democracy?
....

Yes. Absolutely. But, of course, with the obvious caveat (see below)the neocons specify (but others seem to conveniently ignore). And, the reasoning behind it is quite sound, in my opinion. That reasoning is related to foreign relations.

Historically, we do not war with democracies, nor do we have dangerously sour relations with them. In fact, we have the most fair trade agreements with democracies. In the context of the modern world - globalism, realtime communications, etc. - it in our best interest (and that is fundamentally what drives all foreign relations) to promote democracy elsewhere.

Now, the neocon caveat with using the military to promote democracy elsewhere is that it is used AFTER diplomacy has failed.

Wow.

I respect your opinion. I just couldn't agree more about the legal and just application of military force.

I took an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I did not take an oath to spread democracy to other nations who may or may not be willing to uphold their end of the deal even after diplomacy fails.

No one else in the military did either. I suggest if we are going to adopt this as the official role of our military, the only fair thing to do is to give every service member the chance to leave with an honorable discharge or to stay in under the new terms of service.

I certainly had and have no interest in spreading democracy. Other nation's liberty is not worth my life.

There is nothing about this philosophy which goes against your oath or mine at all.

If a nation is a threat to our national security (and our Constitution) and diplomacy fails, yes...use the military. Assuming a win, win all the way and establish a democracy.

Neocons do NOT believe in war for the sake of establishing a democracy. Only when there is a threat to our security...make lemonade.

 

[Si modo]

I bet others feel all dirty that they have agreed with a *gasp* neocon in the past.

Damn straight I do!

I think I'll go take a shower right now, just to get the muck off of me!

Immie

Yeah, Dude had the same reaction. I think Xenophon did, too.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yes. Absolutely. But, of course, with the obvious caveat (see below)the neocons specify (but others seem to conveniently ignore). And, the reasoning behind it is quite sound, in my opinion. That reasoning is related to foreign relations.

Historically, we do not war with democracies, nor do we have dangerously sour relations with them. In fact, we have the most fair trade agreements with democracies. In the context of the modern world - globalism, realtime communications, etc. - it in our best interest (and that is fundamentally what drives all foreign relations) to promote democracy elsewhere.

Now, the neocon caveat with using the military to promote democracy elsewhere is that it is used AFTER diplomacy has failed.

Wow.

I respect your opinion. I just couldn't agree more about the legal and just application of military force.

I took an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I did not take an oath to spread democracy to other nations who may or may not be willing to uphold their end of the deal even after diplomacy fails.

No one else in the military did either. I suggest if we are going to adopt this as the official role of our military, the only fair thing to do is to give every service member the chance to leave with an honorable discharge or to stay in under the new terms of service.

I certainly had and have no interest in spreading democracy. Other nation's liberty is not worth my life.

There is nothing about this philosophy which goes against your oath or mine at all.

If a nation is a threat to our national security (and our Constitution) and diplomacy fails, yes...use the military. Assuming a win, win all the way and establish a democracy.

It's a far different manner to go to war over a real security threat (i.e. an attack) and establish a democracy in the aftermath than to create a war with the primary goal of creating a democracy.

 

[Si modo]

Wow.

I respect your opinion. I just couldn't agree more about the legal and just application of military force.

I took an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I did not take an oath to spread democracy to other nations who may or may not be willing to uphold their end of the deal even after diplomacy fails.

No one else in the military did either. I suggest if we are going to adopt this as the official role of our military, the only fair thing to do is to give every service member the chance to leave with an honorable discharge or to stay in under the new terms of service.

I certainly had and have no interest in spreading democracy. Other nation's liberty is not worth my life.

There is nothing about this philosophy which goes against your oath or mine at all.

If a nation is a threat to our national security (and our Constitution) and diplomacy fails, yes...use the military. Assuming a win, win all the way and establish a democracy.

It's a far different manner to go to war over a real security threat (i.e. an attack) and establish a democracy in the aftermath than to create a war with the primary goal of creating a democracy.

Yes there is. That's why the neoconservative philosophy supports the former.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yes there is. That's why the neoconservative philosophy supports the former.

And yet, when they got into power, that's not what they did.

It's a no brainer to try and create a stable government upon destroying a nation in a war. World War I and the sequel demonstrated that.

Even then it's dicey. We had good cause to go into Afghanistan. Now we are faced with the difficult situation of trying to impose federalism on a nation that has been tribal for as long as it has existed.

It's also a no brainer that going to war to try and impose self determination on a group of people who haven't signed on to that notion is a recipe for disaster.

We'll be lucky to get out of Iraq without being even more bloodied. As soon as we leave, Iran will go to work to try and split the nation and make a land grab that they couldn't accomplish while Hussein was there. The second we set foot into Iraq, we strengthened Iran considerably, and the circumstances and facts over the past six years support that.

Like most political philosophies, "neo-conservatism" briefs well, but is not grounded in any sort of reality.

And again, It's unfair to the soldiers who didn't sign up with the idea of being an permanent expeditionary force that spreads democracy.