Conservatives and Libertarians need to be allies

[TakeAStepBack]

"TakeAStepBack, I recommend a book to you entitled "All Too Human" by George Stephanopoulos if there is still a copy available. It contains some information you might appreciate. "

I'll pass. Thanks.

You should. The facts in the book would kill your soul if you think the Clinton family is on the up and up. They're not. In addition to being world-class crooks, she desires to stifle free enterprise to death and hand over power to murderous Marxists to end free enterprise forever.

If she succeeds, this world will blow itself up. You better not read it if you're going to die in the next couple of years, because you won't like a dying planet the Clintons have in mind by perpetrating experimentalist criminality in the place of rational governance of shrinking masses.

I don't think that, so therefore it would be a waste of time. I already know how crooked those turds are and what they've done to attain power (including the murders adn drug trafficking).

Well, that sounds like something straight from Captain Hyperbole.

 

[kaz]

Hannity and Limbaugh admire Reagan, can we agree about that? What does this text below describe?

Your effort to leverage the old adage, "if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bullshit."

Ron Paul is not Reagan, and Ron Paul talking about Reagan has nothing to do with Rush or Hannity. It's a red herring argument. He's also a narcissistic attention whore even if he's usually right on his positions. Not always.

Reagan was President, he didn't even get a vote on the budget, and deficits alone don't define a neocon. Reagan wanted to cut most government spending, but he wanted to defeat the soviet union with defense spending, so he agreed with the liberal congress to do both. That isn't what a neocon is, a neocon has to WANT to spend.

Rush and Hannity consistently oppose government spending. W loved government and actually proposed spending us into the ground. He wanted it. That is what a neocon is. Our last four Presidents, two Republican, two Democrat were all neocons. They used the military to spread their philosophies to other countries and they loved spending. Slick and Obama just as much. Obama ran against using the military, but he's ruled as a complete neocon.

So you can deflect all you want. But if you go to the definition of the term, it's clear. You're saying conservative and neocon are interchangeably, which is crap. In fact neocon is the left of the Republican party and most of yours.

 

[Pete7469]

Hannity and Limbaugh admire Reagan, can we agree about that? What does this text below describe?

Your effort to leverage the old adage, "if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bullshit."

Ron Paul is not Reagan, and Ron Paul talking about Reagan has nothing to do with Rush or Hannity. It's a red herring argument. He's also a narcissistic attention whore even if he's usually right on his positions. Not always.

Reagan was President, he didn't even get a vote on the budget, and deficits alone don't define a neocon. Reagan wanted to cut most government spending, but he wanted to defeat the soviet union with defense spending, so he agreed with the liberal congress to do both. That isn't what a neocon is, a neocon has to WANT to spend.

Rush and Hannity consistently oppose government spending. W loved government and actually proposed spending us into the ground. He wanted it. That is what a neocon is. Our last four Presidents, two Republican, two Democrat were all neocons. They used the military to spread their philosophies to other countries and they loved spending. Slick and Obama just as much. Obama ran against using the military, but he's ruled as a complete neocon.

So you can deflect all you want. But if you go to the definition of the term, it's clear. You're saying conservative and neocon are interchangeably, which is crap. In fact neocon is the left of the Republican party and most of yours.

I've really enjoyed reading your posts on this thread Kaz. You've contributed some of the best arguements.

thanatos144, TakeAStepBack has been playing with you like a cat plays with a mouse before they kill it.

Quit while you're behind. I probably agree with you on most issues, but you're wrong about libertarians.

 

[thanatos144]

I hate to say it...,. But [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION] was right when he said

Libertarianism is what EVERY person who calls themselves a libertarian say it is.

Libertarianism means everything or it means nothing depending on the libertarian you're addressing.

Libertarianism has all the consistency of water, and can fit into any container wishing to hold it.

 

[Pheonixops]

The one that makes neither Hannity nor Rush neocons is W's spending policies.

But other policies they both spoke out against were W's immigration policies, the Transportation bill and the so called campaign finance reform.

So why don't you google neocon and learn about it so you know what it actually is? neocons aren't conservatives. By definition they aren't fiscal conservatives and neocon has nothing to do with socon

I pretty much have listened to those guys everyday for over 20 years (Hannity for over a decade when he was a local New york host) while commuting and in the office. They spent more time attacking Democrats than they did talking about and railing against Bush's spending policies.

You asked what they criticized. They both critized Bush a lot for those. Now you come back with that they criticized Democrats more than Republicans. Wow, Republicans criticized Republicans, but they criticized Democrats more. How can I put this?

No shit Dick Tracey. I didn't say they weren't Republicans. And pointing out they are adds nothing to either your original comments or my response. And you still apparently have no idea what a neocon is.

They were both in favor of the PA, DHS, etc. They were both in favor of Bush's Middle east ventures

Democrats voted for all of those too. What insight are we supposed to gleam from this exactly relevant to the conversation?

What specific immigration policies of Bush were they against?

Apparently you didn't listen to them as much as you think you did. They were against granting citizenship to illegal aliens before there was a process in place to stop illegal immigration.

Again, none of your questions indicate any understanding of my point, you don't know ... what ... a ... neocon ... is. So stop using the term wrong until you do unless you just want to keep looking ignorant.

When did Bush grant citizenship for illegal aliens? Now it's the "Democrats did it too!" defense? I think that the Democrats who did vote for it were mistaken and on the wrong side of the issue. The FACT is, would be that hannity and rush were in favor of those provisions, hannity and limbaugh were in favor of water boarding and Bush's foreign policy.
What's your definition of a neocon policy wise?

 

[Pheonixops]

Hannity and Limbaugh admire Reagan, can we agree about that? What does this text below describe?

Your effort to leverage the old adage, "if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bullshit."

Ron Paul is not Reagan, and Ron Paul talking about Reagan has nothing to do with Rush or Hannity. It's a red herring argument. He's also a narcissistic attention whore even if he's usually right on his positions. Not always.

Reagan was President, he didn't even get a vote on the budget, and deficits alone don't define a neocon. Reagan wanted to cut most government spending, but he wanted to defeat the soviet union with defense spending, so he agreed with the liberal congress to do both. That isn't what a neocon is, a neocon has to WANT to spend.

Rush and Hannity consistently oppose government spending. W loved government and actually proposed spending us into the ground. He wanted it. That is what a neocon is. Our last four Presidents, two Republican, two Democrat were all neocons. They used the military to spread their philosophies to other countries and they loved spending. Slick and Obama just as much. Obama ran against using the military, but he's ruled as a complete neocon.

So you can deflect all you want. But if you go to the definition of the term, it's clear. You're saying conservative and neocon are interchangeably, which is crap. In fact neocon is the left of the Republican party and most of yours.

It seems like you prefer to argue instead of intelligently debating the issue, but hey if that makes you feel better that's cool. Now;was Ron Paul's letter correct or incorrect? Would you agree that Ron Paul is at least a fiscally conservative person? Don't the aforementioned talk show hosts tout fiscal conservatism? If so, why would they be touting Reagan's policies if a fellow "fiscal conservative" made a valid scathing argument against Reagan's policies?

I do agree with your assessment regarding the neocon Presidents. People look at me cock eyed when I tell them that this President is very similar to the last President, that's why I don't support him. I'd prefer to give the likes of Gary Johnson a try and see how that pans out.

In my opinion conservative and neocon are interchangeable, just look at the policies self described "conservative' talk show hosts and politicians endorse, just take a look at their behavior during the previous Administration. Other than Ron Paul, what other conservative members of Congress spoke out against the Iraq war, PA, etc.? The conservative talk show hosts sure didn't.

 

[kaz]

I pretty much have listened to those guys everyday for over 20 years (Hannity for over a decade when he was a local New york host) while commuting and in the office. They spent more time attacking Democrats than they did talking about and railing against Bush's spending policies.

You asked what they criticized. They both critized Bush a lot for those. Now you come back with that they criticized Democrats more than Republicans. Wow, Republicans criticized Republicans, but they criticized Democrats more. How can I put this?

No shit Dick Tracey. I didn't say they weren't Republicans. And pointing out they are adds nothing to either your original comments or my response. And you still apparently have no idea what a neocon is.



Democrats voted for all of those too. What insight are we supposed to gleam from this exactly relevant to the conversation?

What specific immigration policies of Bush were they against?

Apparently you didn't listen to them as much as you think you did. They were against granting citizenship to illegal aliens before there was a process in place to stop illegal immigration.

Again, none of your questions indicate any understanding of my point, you don't know ... what ... a ... neocon ... is. So stop using the term wrong until you do unless you just want to keep looking ignorant.

When did Bush grant citizenship for illegal aliens?

I'm starting to lose interest in this discussion as you don't know anything and you aren't willing to do any research on your own or look up definitions of words.

Google "Bush Amnesty Bill" and get back to me.

Now it's the "Democrats did it too!" defense? I think that the Democrats who did vote for it were mistaken and on the wrong side of the issue. The FACT is, would be that hannity and rush were in favor of those provisions, hannity and limbaugh were in favor of water boarding and Bush's foreign policy.
What's your definition of a neocon policy wise?

You're making less and less sense. I said you don't know what a neocon is. You still don't. Google it, boy, and get back to me once you know what it means and understand why you are using it wrong. A two question quiz, then we can continue this discussion. In the meantime, I can only handle so much ignorance.

1) Why is W a neocon but Rush isn't? This is butt easy.

2) Why am I saying HW, Clinton, W and Obama are all neocons? You don't have to agree with me, though it's obviously true. Just say why I say they are.

Two, simple questions and we can continue. Else you can play with yourself.

 

[kaz]

In my opinion conservative and neocon are interchangeable

That's because you think the definition of "neocon" is an opinion, so you made up your own definition. It's not, it's a specific political ideology. Spoiler alert, neocon ideology comes from the left, not the right. Think about the components "neo" and "con." Take the quiz and get back to me. If you do it correctly, you will realize what you just wrote is wrong.

 

[Pheonixops]

In my opinion conservative and neocon are interchangeable

That's because you think the definition of "neocon" is an opinion, so you made up your own definition. It's not, it's a specific political ideology. Spoiler alert, neocon ideology comes from the left, not the right. Think about the components "neo" and "con." Take the quiz and get back to me. If you do it correctly, you will realize what you just wrote is wrong.

I tried to be civil, but you want to continue to be a dick. You know damn well that hannity and limbaugh supported cheney and bush's neocon policies. End of story.

Two conservatives, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, in their 2004 book, “America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order,[4]" provided a succinct introduction to neoconservatism at that time.

Today's neo-conservatives unite around three common themes:

A belief deriving from religious conviction that the human condition is defined as a choice between good and evil and that the true measure of political character is to be found in the willingness by the former (themselves) to confront the latter.
An assertion that the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it.
A primary focus on the Middle East and global Islam as the principal theater for American overseas interests.

In putting these themes into practice, neo-conservatives:

Analyze international issues in black-and-white, absolute moral categories. They are fortified by a conviction that they alone hold the moral high ground and argue that disagreement is tantamount to defeatism.
Focus on the "unipolar" power of the United States, seeing the use of military force as the first, not the last, option of foreign policy. They repudiate the "lessons of Vietnam," which they interpret as undermining American will toward the use of force, and embrace the "lessons of Munich," interpreted as establishing the virtues of preemptive military action.
Disdain conventional diplomatic agencies such as the State Department and conventional country-specific, realist, and pragmatic, analysis. They are hostile toward nonmilitary multilateral institutions and instinctively antagonistic toward international treaties and agreements. "Global unilateralism" is their watchword. They are fortified by international criticism, believing that it confirms American virtue.

Look to the Reagan administration as the exemplar of all these virtues and seek to establish their version of Reagan's legacy as the Republican and national orthodoxy.[4]:

 

[kaz]

I tried to be civil, but you want to continue to be a dick. You know damn well that hannity and limbaugh supported cheney and bush's neocon policies. End of story.

They followed HALF his neocon agenda. They followed the military side. I never denied that it's true. I agree it is totally true. Neocons want to spread "Democracy" or their version of it through the military. HW, W, Slick Willy and Obama all have done that as well. They try to mold foreign government to their version of freedom using our military.

However, you ******* shit for brains lazy ass liberal, neocon is also someone who supports big government social spending. It's not just a military ideology.

W is a neocon because he supports both. HW, W, and Slick LOVE to spend piles of money growing social spending. They are all neocons.

On the other hand, you lazy ass kid who won't use the ******* browser at your finger tips so you don't look like the ignorant snotty ass little mental runt that you are, Rush and Hannity are fiscally conservative. They bristled every time W went on a spending rampage. They hated it. Reagan did not want to spend other people's money.

I gave you a dollar and invited you to buy a clue, sadly you didn't. Thanks for the fun though. But you're still a moron.

 

[Pheonixops]

I tried to be civil, but you want to continue to be a dick. You know damn well that hannity and limbaugh supported cheney and bush's neocon policies. End of story.

They followed HALF his neocon agenda. They followed the military side. I never denied that it's true. I agree it is totally true. Neocons want to spread "Democracy" or their version of it through the military. HW, W, Slick Willy and Obama all have done that as well. They try to mold foreign government to their version of freedom using our military.

However, you ******* shit for brains lazy ass liberal, neocon is also someone who supports big government social spending. It's not just a military ideology.

W is a neocon because he supports both. HW, W, and Slick LOVE to spend piles of money growing social spending. They are all neocons.

On the other hand, you lazy ass kid who won't use the ******* browser at your finger tips so you don't look like the ignorant snotty ass little mental runt that you are, Rush and Hannity are fiscally conservative. They bristled every time W went on a spending rampage. They hated it. Reagan did not want to spend other people's money.

I gave you a dollar and invited you to buy a clue, sadly you didn't. Thanks for the fun though. But you're still a moron.

If hannity was so "against" large social spending, why did he complain about Obama doing this:
"Fox's Hannity: "There's Only One Candidate In This Race That Gutted Medicare." On his Fox News show, Sean Hannity said, "There's only one candidate in this race that gutted Medicare. Who is it?" Hannity later said, "There's only one guy that cut Medicare, $741 billion, and that was Barack Obama." [Fox News, Hannity, 8/14/12]"

Did hannity and rush speak out against the creation of DHS? The PA?

"Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together?"

"Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981."

"All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats."

"Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that "deficits don't matter," the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate."

"Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan's foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, and Carter's put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. "

"Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget ammendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it."

"Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism."

"Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. "

"Knowing this administration's record, I wasn't surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind."

"I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy."

"Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government's best friend."

"There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years."
Ron Paul's 1987 Resignation Letter to the RNC - Wikisource, the free online library

That is the man that your two heroes admire and whose template they advocate as being "conservative". Thanks for the laugh!

 

[kaz]

That is the man that your two heroes admire and whose template they advocate as being "conservative". Thanks for the laugh!

Deflection.

The discussion was that you don't know what a neocon is. You don't. What you did is make up your own definition, a neocon is someone you don't like. Wow, you noticed, you don't like cons either. Ergo, you can't tell them apart. You means you, not people who know what a neocon is.

I'm a libertarian, but because I know what a neocon is, and that Rush and Hannity, conservatives, don't fit that definition, that means they are my "heroes."

You're a moron.

 

[thanatos144]

That is the man that your two heroes admire and whose template they advocate as being "conservative". Thanks for the laugh!

Deflection.

The discussion was that you don't know what a neocon is. You don't. What you did is make up your own definition, a neocon is someone you don't like. Wow, you noticed, you don't like cons either. Ergo, you can't tell them apart. You means you, not people who know what a neocon is.

I'm a libertarian, but because I know what a neocon is, and that Rush and Hannity, conservatives, don't fit that definition, that means they are my "heroes."

You're a moron.

Neo con is new Conservative.... Periods. Liberals and libertarians twisted the word to be an insult.... They both did alinski proud.

 

[kaz]

That is the man that your two heroes admire and whose template they advocate as being "conservative". Thanks for the laugh!

Deflection.

The discussion was that you don't know what a neocon is. You don't. What you did is make up your own definition, a neocon is someone you don't like. Wow, you noticed, you don't like cons either. Ergo, you can't tell them apart. You means you, not people who know what a neocon is.

I'm a libertarian, but because I know what a neocon is, and that Rush and Hannity, conservatives, don't fit that definition, that means they are my "heroes."

You're a moron.

Neo con is new Conservative.... Periods.

True, but more specifically they were big government liberals who thought democracy was best and they wanted to spread it with the direct support of the military. They did not change their view of love of big government, which is why they were as you say "new" conservatives.

So Slick & Barry are naturals, most neocons came from the left, they adopted the pro-military pushing of our form of government agenda for a natural straight. On the other hand, HW and W coming from the Republican party were already hip to the military side, it was their adoption of love of big government spending that completed their journey to neocon.

Liberals and libertarians twisted the word to be an insult.... They both did alinski proud.

I'm a libertarian and I'm twisting nothing. Some do, but it's more the left who like the sound of the word "neocon" so they've changed the meaning to "extreme connservative." Ironic since neocon is actually not really conservative at all. But if liberals like a label, they will make it work.

 

[editec]

I hate to say it...,. But [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION] was right when he said

Libertarianism is what EVERY person who calls themselves a libertarian say it is.

Libertarianism means everything or it means nothing depending on the libertarian you're addressing.

Libertarianism has all the consistency of water, and can fit into any container wishing to hold it.

As yopu have probably noted, most of what goes on here is NOT real debate about issues.

Mostly these folks like to debate the meanings of words that have no set meanings, or in other cases they like to redefine well understood word meanings in order to advance a great big fat huge partisan lie.


So we end up debating the meaning of a word that in POLI SCIE stil have no clearly defined meaning and at the same time we end up have to work around the PERVERSION of word meanings on words (like socialist, communist, capitalist, etc) that DO have clear meanings in the world of POLISCI.

Semantics debates is NOT worth our time, but that's the game that most people love to play here.

 

[Contumacious]

[

Neo con is new Conservative.... Periods. Liberals and libertarians twisted the word to be an insult.... They both did alinski proud.

"A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well."

 

[Pheonixops]

That is the man that your two heroes admire and whose template they advocate as being "conservative". Thanks for the laugh!

Deflection.

The discussion was that you don't know what a neocon is. You don't. What you did is make up your own definition, a neocon is someone you don't like. Wow, you noticed, you don't like cons either. Ergo, you can't tell them apart. You means you, not people who know what a neocon is.

I'm a libertarian, but because I know what a neocon is, and that Rush and Hannity, conservatives, don't fit that definition, that means they are my "heroes."

You're a moron.

Deflection my ass, you are full of shit with your claim to be a Libertarian. Most Libertarians I know think those guys are neocon clowns. I posted fact instead of hot air and rude bullshit that you have been posting, and you have run away from those facts that demonstrate limbaugh, hannity, and reagan's big government and neocon war like policies.
Ron Paul held a mirror up to reagan and his neocon policies, hannity and limbaugh laud reagan as "the" conservative President. Your DEFLECTION and denial demonstrate that you are cut from the same cloth as those assholes.......ASSHOLE. Thanks for the laugh though!!

 

[kaz]

Deflection my ass, you are full of shit with your claim to be a Libertarian. Most Libertarians I know think those guys are neocon clowns.

I agree, Libertarians are a lot like you. I've made that point as well. However, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a libertarian.

I posted fact instead of hot air and rude bullshit that you have been posting, and you have run away from those facts that demonstrate limbaugh, hannity, and reagan's big government and neocon war like policies.
Ron Paul held a mirror up to reagan and his neocon policies, hannity and limbaugh laud reagan as "the" conservative President. Your DEFLECTION and denial demonstrate that you are cut from the same cloth as those assholes.......ASSHOLE. Thanks for the laugh though!!

Ron Paul didn't call them "neocons" because unlike you he knows what the word means. I didn't defend them or agree with them. I'm against our foreign wars. Once again, you think "neocon" means someone you don't like, and if I say they aren't neocons, that means I (in your deluded, shallow mind) like them. I just don't need to mislabel them or use words I don't understand to get there.

I'm a libertarian, I oppose Rush and Hannity's foreign policies, I oppose their social agenda. I generally agree with them on fiscal issues. So what a mind ****, huh? I don't think they are neocons, but I don't agree with them. It's like saying water is fire to you, isn't it?

 

[Pheonixops]

Deflection my ass, you are full of shit with your claim to be a Libertarian. Most Libertarians I know think those guys are neocon clowns.

I agree, Libertarians are a lot like you. I've made that point as well. However, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a libertarian.

I posted fact instead of hot air and rude bullshit that you have been posting, and you have run away from those facts that demonstrate limbaugh, hannity, and reagan's big government and neocon war like policies.
Ron Paul held a mirror up to reagan and his neocon policies, hannity and limbaugh laud reagan as "the" conservative President. Your DEFLECTION and denial demonstrate that you are cut from the same cloth as those assholes.......ASSHOLE. Thanks for the laugh though!!

Ron Paul didn't call them "neocons" because unlike you he knows what the word means. I didn't defend them or agree with them. I'm against our foreign wars. Once again, you think "neocon" means someone you don't like, and if I say they aren't neocons, that means I (in your deluded, shallow mind) like them. I just don't need to mislabel them or use words I don't understand to get there.

I'm a libertarian, I oppose Rush and Hannity's foreign policies, I oppose their social agenda. I generally agree with them on fiscal issues. So what a mind ****, huh? I don't think they are neocons, but I don't agree with them. It's like saying water is fire to you, isn't it?

Here's a article that may be worth reading to you or anyone else:
The Reagan Phenomenon ?