Sarah Palin resigning as Governor of Alaska

[bk1983]

Just look at this list of neocons from the statement of principles for PNAC. Filled with Reagan,and Bush administration officials, damn these guys are bleeding liberals.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Statement of Principles

not every member of PNAC is a neocon, moron

The majority ARE moron, and all of them are members of the party you are forever loyal to the Republicans.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Ah, a challenge from a pea brain

Which would constitute an insurmountable challenge to the massive defective ego that is all things you.

No sir. You do not in fact know what a neocon is.

You are such a limited little pinhead of a tool that you apparently believe that the word has only one meaning.

 

[Liability]

Jonah Goldberg is one of the ones who speaks sensibly by noting (as I have) that the term "neoconservative" has so many different (and often somewhat contradictory) meanings, that it effectively has lost the utility of having ANY actual meaning at all.

Kill this word: poor, abused, unrecognizable, meaningless 'neocon' | National Review | Find Articles at BNET

Self-satisfied, smug, smarmy simps like bfgrn would have us believe otherwise. Why? Because they believe otherwise. Pinheads.

 

[HUGGY]

Gee...I wish I were smart enough to comprehend WHY the neocons are in the GOP and NOT the Democratic Party if they're closer to liberals than conservatives...

I guess it takes a "SPECIAL" kind of intelligence...

Neo-cons..."New Conservatives" are closer to Liberals than conservatives. That statement is so stupid it defies any adjative to explain it.

Dive **** you are an idiot. Watch your pointless neg reps.

you deserve every one you get, asshole

I've never given a neg rep. I wouldn't know how I could support the first amendment and act like you. It must be a very special feeling. You must be real proud to be you.

There is really no need to label you with a name ..you know what you are.

 

[Bfgrn]

Jonah Goldberg is one of the ones who speaks sensibly by noting (as I have) that the term "neoconservative" has so many different (and often somewhat contradictory) meanings, that it effectively has lost the utility of having ANY actual meaning at all.

Kill this word: poor, abused, unrecognizable, meaningless 'neocon' | National Review | Find Articles at BNET

Self-satisfied, smug, smarmy simps like bfgrn would have us believe otherwise. Why? Because they believe otherwise. Pinheads.

Jonah Goldberg...ROFLMAO!!! Herein lies your problem pea brain...you get your information from an idiot...

The neoconservatives are real people with a real agenda pea brain...policy makers and generals know EXACTLY who they are, WHAT they promote and their radical ideology. NOW we know the outcome of their agenda and their radical ideology; a 3 trillion dollar failure called the War in Iraq...and of course Jonah Goldberg just wants them to go away, because it was PNAC's agenda of preemptive war and unilateral invasion that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld swallowed and plunged this nation INTO that a 3 trillion dollar failure called the War in Iraq...

Maybe General Anthony Zinni can enlighten you...

“If you charge me with the responsibility of taking this nation to war, if you charge me with implementing that policy with creating the strategy which convinces me to go to war, and I fail you, then I ought to go.”

Who specifically is he talking about?

“Well, it starts with at the top. If you're the secretary of defense and you're responsible for that. If you're responsible for that planning and that execution on the ground. If you've assumed responsibility for the other elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and everything else, then you bear responsibility,” says Zinni. “Certainly those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly they ought to be gone and replaced.”

Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.

“I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.

“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested.”

Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.”

Zinni said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and bring it into the 21st century.

“All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the take down of Iraq as a priority,” adds Zinni. “And what we have become now in the United States, how we're viewed in this region is not an entity that's promising positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world.”

Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up' - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.


Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[DiveCon]

Neo-cons..."New Conservatives" are closer to Liberals than conservatives. That statement is so stupid it defies any adjative to explain it.

Dive **** you are an idiot. Watch your pointless neg reps.

you deserve every one you get, asshole

I've never given a neg rep. I wouldn't know how I could support the first amendment and act like you. It must be a very special feeling. You must be real proud to be you.

There is really no need to label you with a name ..you know what you are.

damn, still showing what a ******* moron you are
my giving you a neg rep for your stupid posts does not infringe on ANY of your rights, asshole

i wish you morons would actually LEARN what your rights actually are before you start claiming they are being violated

 

[DiveCon]

* * * *

Ah, a challenge from a pea brain

Which would constitute an insurmountable challenge to the massive defective ego that is all things you.

No sir. You do not in fact know what a neocon is.

You are such a limited little pinhead of a tool that you apparently believe that the word has only one meaning.

he's the real peabrain

actually, calling him a peabrain might be giving him too much credit

 

[Coyote]

Jonah Goldberg is one of the ones who speaks sensibly by noting (as I have) that the term "neoconservative" has so many different (and often somewhat contradictory) meanings, that it effectively has lost the utility of having ANY actual meaning at all.

Kill this word: poor, abused, unrecognizable, meaningless 'neocon' | National Review | Find Articles at BNET

Self-satisfied, smug, smarmy simps like bfgrn would have us believe otherwise. Why? Because they believe otherwise. Pinheads.

Jonah Goldberg? The man who butchered the meaning of "fascism" in an ignorant attempt to caste liberalism alongside Mussolini and Hitler? I would never take anything he says seriously or call it sensible. He's just another ideologue.

 

[EriktheRed]

Jonah Goldberg is one of the ones who speaks sensibly by noting (as I have) that the term "neoconservative" has so many different (and often somewhat contradictory) meanings, that it effectively has lost the utility of having ANY actual meaning at all.

Kill this word: poor, abused, unrecognizable, meaningless 'neocon' | National Review | Find Articles at BNET

Self-satisfied, smug, smarmy simps like bfgrn would have us believe otherwise. Why? Because they believe otherwise. Pinheads.

Jonah Goldberg? The man who butchered the meaning of "fascism" in an ignorant attempt to caste liberalism alongside Mussolini and Hitler? I would never take anything he says seriously or call it sensible. He's just another ideologue.

Not to mention a guy who likely wouldn't even have a platform for his inane horseshit if it weren't for his wingnut mom.

 

[Liability]

Jonah Goldberg is one of the ones who speaks sensibly by noting (as I have) that the term "neoconservative" has so many different (and often somewhat contradictory) meanings, that it effectively has lost the utility of having ANY actual meaning at all.

Kill this word: poor, abused, unrecognizable, meaningless 'neocon' | National Review | Find Articles at BNET

Self-satisfied, smug, smarmy simps like bfgrn would have us believe otherwise. Why? Because they believe otherwise. Pinheads.

Jonah Goldberg? The man who butchered the meaning of "fascism" in an ignorant attempt to caste liberalism alongside Mussolini and Hitler? I would never take anything he says seriously or call it sensible. He's just another ideologue.

He was absolutely right about the term "fascism" too.

 

[Coyote]

Jonah Goldberg is one of the ones who speaks sensibly by noting (as I have) that the term "neoconservative" has so many different (and often somewhat contradictory) meanings, that it effectively has lost the utility of having ANY actual meaning at all.

Kill this word: poor, abused, unrecognizable, meaningless 'neocon' | National Review | Find Articles at BNET

Self-satisfied, smug, smarmy simps like bfgrn would have us believe otherwise. Why? Because they believe otherwise. Pinheads.

Jonah Goldberg? The man who butchered the meaning of "fascism" in an ignorant attempt to caste liberalism alongside Mussolini and Hitler? I would never take anything he says seriously or call it sensible. He's just another ideologue.

He was absolutely right about the term "fascism" too.

Not by a long shot - he showed little respect for history and a lot of literary license.

 

[Liability]

Jonah Goldberg? The man who butchered the meaning of "fascism" in an ignorant attempt to caste liberalism alongside Mussolini and Hitler? I would never take anything he says seriously or call it sensible. He's just another ideologue.

He was absolutely right about the term "fascism" too.

Not by a long shot - he showed little respect for history and a lot of literary license.

Not by a long shot. He was precise and quite accurate in correcting the license that had been taken with our language for far too long.

That is far more respectful of history than the guys who mucked it up in the first place.

 

[Coyote]

He was absolutely right about the term "fascism" too.

Not by a long shot - he showed little respect for history and a lot of literary license.

Not by a long shot. He was precise and quite accurate in correcting the license that had been taken with our language for far too long.

That is far more respectful of history than the guys who mucked it up in the first place.

You should read the review - it pretty much says it all and it's not a liberal's review either.

 

[Liability]

Not by a long shot - he showed little respect for history and a lot of literary license.

Not by a long shot. He was precise and quite accurate in correcting the license that had been taken with our language for far too long.

That is far more respectful of history than the guys who mucked it up in the first place.

You should read the review - it pretty much says it all and it's not a liberal's review either.

I did better. I read the book. The numeous criticisms I have read of the book are generally just false. They claim Mr. Goldberg meant something in what he wrote at odds with what he obviously did mean and often at odds with what he said.

Sorry, but that's just a lot of crap. Fascism DOES have a variety of identifiers associated with it and those identifiers are more consonant with modern American "liberalism" than almost anything else.

Liberals are guilty of having butchered the meaning of "fascism" just like so many of them today deliberately butcher the term "neocon." Reviews of Goldberg's book by liberals are thus, generally, of no value.

Edited to add: That ^ last sentence is a bit unclear. My bad. I will attempt to clarify it a little: Austin W. Bramwell may not be a "liberal." But he often sounds more like a liberal in his criticism of conservatives and conservatism than he sounds like a conservative. I am not sure why William F. Buckely asked him to step down from the NR, but I do wonder if there was a suspicion that Bramwell was something other than he pretends to be.

 

[Bfgrn]

Not by a long shot. He was precise and quite accurate in correcting the license that had been taken with our language for far too long.

That is far more respectful of history than the guys who mucked it up in the first place.

You should read the review - it pretty much says it all and it's not a liberal's review either.

I did better. I read the book. The numeous criticisms I have read of the book are generally just false. They claim Mr. Goldberg meant something in what he wrote at odds with what he obviously did mean and often at odds with what he said.

Sorry, but that's just a lot of crap. Fascism DOES have a variety of identifiers associated with it and those identifiers are more consonant with modern American "liberalism" than almost anything else.

Liberals are guilty of having butchered the meaning of "fascism" just like so many of them today deliberately butcher the term "neocon." Reviews of Goldberg's book by liberals are thus, generally, of no value.

Edited to add: That ^ last sentence is a bit unclear. My bad. I will attempt to clarify it a little: Austin W. Bramwell may not be a "liberal." But he often sounds more like a liberal in his criticism of conservatives and conservatism than he sounds like a conservative. I am not sure why William F. Buckely asked him to step down from the NR, but I do wonder if there was a suspicion that Bramwell was something other than he pretends to be.

It's a good thing Hitler didn't have the opportunity to read Goldberg's book; he would never have arrested, imprisoned and executed so many liberals! Who knows, we might be speaking German right now!

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller


"First they came…" is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

 

[Liability]

You should read the review - it pretty much says it all and it's not a liberal's review either.

I did better. I read the book. The numeous criticisms I have read of the book are generally just false. They claim Mr. Goldberg meant something in what he wrote at odds with what he obviously did mean and often at odds with what he said.

Sorry, but that's just a lot of crap. Fascism DOES have a variety of identifiers associated with it and those identifiers are more consonant with modern American "liberalism" than almost anything else.

Liberals are guilty of having butchered the meaning of "fascism" just like so many of them today deliberately butcher the term "neocon." Reviews of Goldberg's book by liberals are thus, generally, of no value.

Edited to add: That ^ last sentence is a bit unclear. My bad. I will attempt to clarify it a little: Austin W. Bramwell may not be a "liberal." But he often sounds more like a liberal in his criticism of conservatives and conservatism than he sounds like a conservative. I am not sure why William F. Buckely asked him to step down from the NR, but I do wonder if there was a suspicion that Bramwell was something other than he pretends to be.

It's a good thing Hitler didn't have the opportunity to read Goldberg's book; he would never have arrested, imprisoned and executed so many liberals! Who knows, we might be speaking German right now!

When the Nazis came for * * * * {yada yada recitation of completely irrelevant poem snipped}.


"First they came…" is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

Now THERE'S a post that makes no sense.



The Nazis WERE fascist and their political ideology was largely "liberal."

 

[Coyote]

Not by a long shot. He was precise and quite accurate in correcting the license that had been taken with our language for far too long.

That is far more respectful of history than the guys who mucked it up in the first place.

You should read the review - it pretty much says it all and it's not a liberal's review either.

I did better. I read the book. The numeous criticisms I have read of the book are generally just false. They claim Mr. Goldberg meant something in what he wrote at odds with what he obviously did mean and often at odds with what he said.

Sorry, but that's just a lot of crap. Fascism DOES have a variety of identifiers associated with it and those identifiers are more consonant with modern American "liberalism" than almost anything else.

Liberals are guilty of having butchered the meaning of "fascism" just like so many of them today deliberately butcher the term "neocon." Reviews of Goldberg's book by liberals are thus, generally, of no value.

Edited to add: That ^ last sentence is a bit unclear. My bad. I will attempt to clarify it a little: Austin W. Bramwell may not be a "liberal." But he often sounds more like a liberal in his criticism of conservatives and conservatism than he sounds like a conservative. I am not sure why William F. Buckely asked him to step down from the NR, but I do wonder if there was a suspicion that Bramwell was something other than he pretends to be.

That is why I chose a conservative review from a respected source. Goldberg's analysis and writing and sense of accuracy is more akin to something produced by Michael Moore. Demonizing through ignorance. And I don't agree with the liberals tossing about of the term "fascism" either. Both sides are quick to throw comparisons of fascism and nazism at each other and it only shows a profound ignorance of historical reality.

Goldberg's biggest dishonesty is that he limits his critique to only one ideology and is blind to his own side's failings. And yes, I have the book too - waste of good money.

If you look at fascism's identifyers - from fascism in theory - early Mussolini - to fascism in practice - Mussolini in power - you will see many points in common with rightwing ideology. The end result though is it has aspects of both in it and it defies the simplistic left-right axis that those like Goldberg use.

I think Bramwell comes off "sounding like a liberal" because he is willing to criticize contemporary conservatism (maybe as is represented by "neo-cons"?) which has drifted pretty far from it's traditional roots in much the same way liberalism has.

 

[Liability]

You should read the review - it pretty much says it all and it's not a liberal's review either.

I did better. I read the book. The numeous criticisms I have read of the book are generally just false. They claim Mr. Goldberg meant something in what he wrote at odds with what he obviously did mean and often at odds with what he said.

Sorry, but that's just a lot of crap. Fascism DOES have a variety of identifiers associated with it and those identifiers are more consonant with modern American "liberalism" than almost anything else.

Liberals are guilty of having butchered the meaning of "fascism" just like so many of them today deliberately butcher the term "neocon." Reviews of Goldberg's book by liberals are thus, generally, of no value.

Edited to add: That ^ last sentence is a bit unclear. My bad. I will attempt to clarify it a little: Austin W. Bramwell may not be a "liberal." But he often sounds more like a liberal in his criticism of conservatives and conservatism than he sounds like a conservative. I am not sure why William F. Buckely asked him to step down from the NR, but I do wonder if there was a suspicion that Bramwell was something other than he pretends to be.

That is why I chose a conservative review from a respected source. Goldberg's analysis and writing and sense of accuracy is more akin to something produced by Michael Moore. Demonizing through ignorance. And I don't agree with the liberals tossing about of the term "fascism" either. Both sides are quick to throw comparisons of fascism and nazism at each other and it only shows a profound ignorance of historical reality.

Goldberg's biggest dishonesty is that he limits his critique to only one ideology and is blind to his own side's failings. And yes, I have the book too - waste of good money.

If you look at fascism's identifyers - from fascism in theory - early Mussolini - to fascism in practice - Mussolini in power - you will see many points in common with rightwing ideology. The end result though is it has aspects of both in it and it defies the simplistic left-right axis that those like Goldberg use.

I think Bramwell comes off "sounding like a liberal" because he is willing to criticize contemporary conservatism (maybe as is represented by "neo-cons"?) which has drifted pretty far from it's traditional roots in much the same way liberalism has.

You conflate neoconservatism (whatever the hell it means anymore) with conservatism.

In doing that, as you are, you are wrong and it distorts your views and judgments.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yo........asshat named Liability (nice to see that you picked an appropriate name), what the **** is the color in your insane sky when you say that nazism was "liberal"?

Remember dude........the doctor gave you the medication for a reason. Don't go off your pills.

Provide evidence that nazis were liberal.

 

[Liability]

* * * * {blathering stupid preliminary drivel offered by ADoucheySailor snipped}

Provide evidence that nazis were liberal.

LOL!

Why?

Imbeciles like you are not capable of understanding not pre-digested for you by Good Housekeeping and Liberal Orthodoxy Quarterly.

You do not understand the basic premises of modern American "liberalism." Thus, you have no chance at all of grasping why Nazis were, in political ideology, essentially "liberals."