Yes, whatever did happen to them?

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h2><a href=http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4056>What Became of Conservatives?</a></h2></center>

<blockquote>by Paul Craig Roberts

I remember when friends would excitedly telephone to report that Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy had just read one of my syndicated columns over the air. That was before I became a critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration, and the neoconservative ideologues who have seized control of the U.S. government.

America has blundered into a needless and dangerous war, and fully half of the country's population is enthusiastic. Many Christians think that war in the Middle East signals "end times" and that they are about to be wafted up to heaven. Many patriots think that, finally, America is standing up for itself and demonstrating its righteous might. Conservatives are taking out their Vietnam frustrations on Iraqis. Karl Rove is wrapping Bush in the protective cloak of war leader. The military-industrial complex is drooling over the profits of war. And neoconservatives are laying the groundwork for Israeli territorial expansion.</blockquote>

Paul Roberts was the darling of the right wing-nut media crowd until he spoke out against the war with Iraq. After that, however, he was brandd a pariah and a traitor by those who formerly sang his praises. The rest of the world has recognised the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration. America, at least 51% of it, is still asleep at the wheel. With the crash of the dollar, our financial bankruptcy at Dubbyuh's hads won't be far behind.

 

[Avatar4321]

Who the hell is Paul Roberts and why do you expect us to believe some no name guy is supposedly a true conservative.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Who the hell is Paul Roberts and why do you expect us to believe some no name guy is supposedly a true conservative.

Google Paul Craig Roberts, correct your apalling ignorance.

 

[007]

Google Paul Craig Roberts, correct your apalling ignorance.

First you post more of your liberal garbage, then you insult a mod? You're begging to be banned to stupid fuck. If I was a mod, you'd already be gone.

 

[hylandrdet]

First you post more of your liberal garbage, then you insult a mod? You're begging to be banned to stupid fuck. If I was a mod, you'd already be gone.

So what you're saying? If you post something that hints that you're a liberal, you should be banned? Read the disclaimer on this web site... Last I'd recalled, it welcomes both liberal and conservative views.

This man had someting to say; let him say it.

"Intimidation is a bluff; anyone who uses insults and threats as a weapon, may possess fear as their primary motive for such actions."

I was reminded of that recently; and I stand corrected.

 

[Avatar4321]

Google Paul Craig Roberts, correct your apalling ignorance.

You missed the point Bully. I could Google the name of anyone who writes an article. Whats that prove? That he wrote some articles and claims to be conservative or even a "true conservative" However, that doesn't mean simply because you post one of his articles that we are all supposed to concede that his view of conservatism is correct, that we are being lead astray and need to start following him blindly. One of the main premises of conservatism is to think for ourselves. Hence why most conservatives wont really care what he says. Because if he disagrees with what we find logical and right, it doesnt matter. He can claim to be a "true conservative" all day long it doesnt change whats right for this country. While he is fighting for a label we will be fixing the problems in this country. heck he can have the conservative label for all i care. I care more about being a good American and doing whats right than the label of Conservative.

I believe my point is that just because post the article of someone who claims and may very well be conservative doesnt make your position right. How about instead of trying to point out why were are wrong, you get off your butt and come up with some reasons why your point of view is right. Why should we follow the liberal agenda?

 

[Merlin1047]

America has blundered into a needless and dangerous war, and fully half of the country's population is enthusiastic. Many Christians think that war in the Middle East signals "end times" and that they are about to be wafted up to heaven. Many patriots think that, finally, America is standing up for itself and demonstrating its righteous might. Conservatives are taking out their Vietnam frustrations on Iraqis. Karl Rove is wrapping Bush in the protective cloak of war leader. The military-industrial complex is drooling over the profits of war. And neoconservatives are laying the groundwork for Israeli territorial expansion.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Number me among the ignorant. I too do not know who this alleged "conservative" is. And I'm NOT going to Google, because I don't care. I will remain blissfully ignorant on this individual.

In regard to his article, I have not heard those phrases tossed about since the late '60s and early '70s. Guess nothing changes very much. Left wingers just dust off the old rhetoric from the likes of Fonda, Hayden and Huey Newton. Will you be posting passages from Che Guevara in the future? I know who he was. I won't have to google.

 

[Bullypulpit]

First you post more of your liberal garbage, then you insult a mod? You're begging to be banned to stupid fuck. If I was a mod, you'd already be gone.

Grab yer ears and give 'em a firm tug. Maybe yer head will pop outta yer ass. The results could be disasterous though as you're so full of crap.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Paul Roberts was assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy early in the Reagan administration, he's worked for Stanford University and The Wall Street Journal, and he's written books with really long titles. He apparently has also had his ego bruised because people with a bigger audience aren't reading his stuff over the air anymore.

 

[Avatar4321]

Paul Roberts was assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy early in the Reagan administration, he's worked for Stanford University and The Wall Street Journal, and he's written books with really long titles. He apparently has also had his ego bruised because people with a bigger audience aren't reading his stuff over the air anymore.

So because he was the assistant secretary of treasury for economic policy over 20 years ago we are supposed to somehow blindly accepts what he wants?

I think Bully's main problem is he cant believe that anyone actually thinks for themselves. (well im sure except for him. I bet he could follow the liberal mantra all day long and he would always be thinking for himself) Thus instead of trying to make a persuasive argument on the merits he is trying to appeal to a guy weve never heard of that claims to be one of us and follow him blindly without actually thinking about what he says.