She said that where? Why should we take you seriously? You are a Republican. Republicans won the Presidency. According to you it doesn't matter if you wanted that or not, it happened. Like with Newt. He wanted to cut, but he didn't. Doesn't matter (according to you) if he didn't want more government spending, he didn't stop it. His being against that doesn't matter, according to you, he's a progressive because it did
I'm not a republican. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. There's a difference.
OK, read my response this time. You said it doesn't matter if Newt had the option to cut or not, he's a progressive because he didn't. So by that logic, you're a Republican because a Republican won, by your logic it doesn't matter if you had a choice to change that or not
She said the military isn't a government program, when it clearly is. As such, the Pentagon subject to the same level of politicking, unnecessary redundancy, wastefulness, and bureaucratic bloat that the Departments of Education or HUD are
Right, I agreed with you. Again, you're posting, you're not reading responses. BTW, even if the military were privatized (which is largely is), it's still a government program. Again, read ...
A Wilsonian interventionist foreign policy is progressive/neoconservitive. Meanwhile, growing domestic government over here, at the expense of programs over there, is not conservative, in any stretched definition of the word. I'm sorry that you cannot come to grips with that reality.
Again you're mixing military with economics. And again you're not reading. I agree with you on the military, though you like to dabble in hyperbole. But you're fundamentally right. Saying progressive/neoconservative is redundant, neocons are progressive by definition.
Wilson clearly on the military side was for intervening for the good of the world in everyone's shit. Again, you're arguing a point we agree on. I'm against that and I said I'm against it. But nowhere in that clip did Newt say he's for big government spending and he cut as much as he could in congress. You are in no way supporting that he was a progressive.
Since you're too lazy to read text while you debate, I'll boil it down for you:
Neocon
- Military interventionist in everyone's shit. Newt is this
- Big government social spender. Newt is not this
You keep arguing the half I agree with you, the first half. You have provided zero support for the second other than he didn't cut that which he had no power to cut