Occubaggers Please Keep it Going

DamnYankee

DamnYankee

Loyal to the end
The tea party's splendid successes, which have altered the nation's political vocabulary and agenda, have inspired a countermovement — Occupy Wall Street. Conservatives should rejoice and wish for it long life, abundant publicity and sufficient organization to endorse congressional candidates deemed worthy. All Democrats eager for OWS' imprimatur, step forward.

In scale, OWS' demonstrations-cum-encampments are to tea-party events as Pittsburg, Kan., is to Pittsburgh, Pa. So far, probably fewer people have participated in all of them combined than attended just one tea-party rally, that of Sept. 12, 2009, on the Washington Mall. In comportment, OWS is to the tea party as Lady Gaga is to Lord Chesterfield: Blocking the Brooklyn Bridge was not persuasion modeled on tea-party tactics.

Still, OWS' defenders correctly say it represents progressivism's spirit and intellect. Because it embraces spontaneity and deplores elitism, it eschews deliberation and leadership. Hence its agenda, beyond eliminating one of the seven deadly sins (avarice), is opaque. Its meta-theory is, however, clear: Washington is grotesquely corrupt and insufficiently powerful.

...

From 1965 through 1968, the left found its voice and style in consciousness-raising demonstrations and disruptions. In November 1968, the nation, its consciousness raised, elected Richard Nixon president and gave 56.9 percent of the popular vote to Nixon or George Wallace. Republicans won four of the next five presidential elections.
Click to expand...
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/201...ill-column-calling-for-a-mulligan-ar-1497023/

:)
 
It took quite a while for the TP to find a unified voice, essentialy until they were co-opted by the neo-cons.
 
Elias Koteas said:
Here's an older piece about neoconservatism, as it was still emerging. Try reading for once, Damn Southerner.

http://www.mmisi.org/ma/27_01/gottfried.pdf
Click to expand...

That articles nearly 30 years old. So some academic and government types who call themselves conservative aren't true conservative. Big fucking news there. My positions have always been argued consistently the stated platform of the true conservative movement, as stated clearly at conservative.org.
 
DamnYankee said:
That articles nearly 30 years old. So some academic and government types who call themselves conservative aren't true conservative. Big fucking news there. My positions have always been argued consistently the stated platform of the true conservative movement, as stated clearly at conservative.org.
Click to expand...

No one gives a fuck about your stated platform and it's existence in no way disproves the existence of neo-cons.
 
My position, Dim Dune, is and always has been that I am a capital C Conservative, far from a neo-anything. So take your bogey-man argument elsewhere. :)
 
DamnYankee said:
My position, Dim Dune, is and always has been that I am a capital C Conservative, far from a neo-anything. So take your bogey-man argument elsewhere. :)
Click to expand...
I realize this is difficult for you to understand, be we are not talking about you. That is why I said above, NO ONE GIVES A FUCK about your stated platform.

You talk as if you represent the entire GOP and the TP. What a self-centered moron.
 
Return of Dune said:
I realize this is difficult for you to understand, be we are not talking about you. That is why I said above, NO ONE GIVES A FUCK about your stated platform.

You talk as if you represent the entire GOP and the TP. What a self-centered moron.
Click to expand...
I represent the Conservative view. We have about 100 members in the House. I've never been about the GOP.
 
DamnYankee said:
If you 'don't give a fuck', then why are you trying to misrepresent my position? :)
Click to expand...

I am not trying to mis-represent your position. That's what I keep telling you.
Your position is meaningless, and has nothing to do with the existence of Neo-cons, and their role in the TP.
 
Return of Dune said:
I am not trying to mis-represent your position. That's what I keep telling you.
Your position is meaningless, and has nothing to do with the existence of Neo-cons, and their role in the TP.
Click to expand...
That's bullshit. There is no necon influence in the TEA movement. Its the exact opposite of what your bogeyman stands for.
 
DamnYankee said:
That articles nearly 30 years old. So some academic and government types who call themselves conservative aren't true conservative. Big fucking news there. My positions have always been argued consistently the stated platform of the true conservative movement, as stated clearly at conservative.org.
Click to expand...

Your views also include using the power of the government to maintain your property values and to forbid privately owned businesses from deciding on their own whether to allow smoking (because you don't like smoking). Not exactly in the spirit of true conservatism.
 
Phanes said:
Here's an older piece about neoconservatism, as it was still emerging. Try reading for once, Damn Southerner.

http://www.mmisi.org/ma/27_01/gottfried.pdf
Click to expand...

Gottfried is a nut......you need a new source of information....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservative

NEOCONSERVATISM

A neo-conservative (abbreviated as neo-con or neocon) is part of a U.S. based political movement rooted in liberal Cold War anticommunism and a backlash to the social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s. These liberals drifted toward conservatism: thus they are new (neo) conservatives. They favor an aggressive unilateral U.S. foreign policy. They generally believe that elites protect democracy from mob rule. Sometimes the spelling is "neoconservative."
In their book Right-Wing Populism in America, Chip Berlet and Matthew Lyons wrote that:

Neoconservatives, including many Jewish and Catholic intellectuals rooted in Cold War liberalism, clustered around publications such as Public Interest and Commentary and organizations such as the Committee on the Present Danger. They emphasized foreign policy, where they advocated aggressive anticommunism, U.S. global dominance, and international alliances. Although they attacked feminism, gay rights, and multiculturalism, "neocons" often placed less emphasis on social policy issues, and many of them opposed school prayer or a ban on abortion. In addition, many neocons supported limited social welfare programs and nonrestrictive immigration policies."

Inter-Press Service journalist Jim Lobe noted that the development of a common understanding on the definition of neoconservative "can help distinguish them from other parts of the ideological coalition behind the administration's neo-imperialist trajectory". Lobe identifies the main strands as "the traditional Republican Machtpolitikers (Might Makes Right), such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and the Christian Rightists, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer, and Pat Robertson."

Writing in 2002 Lobe and Tom Barry argued that"neoconservatives have a profound belief in America1s moral superiority, which facilitates alliances with the Christian Right and other social conservatives. But unlike either core traditionalists of American conservatism or those with isolationist tendencies, neoconservatives are committed internationalists. As they did in the 1970s, the neoconservatives were instrumental in the late 1990s in helping to fuse diverse elements of the right into a unified force based on a new agenda of U.S. supremacy."
===================
closer to the facts but I would still have to disagree or clarify with some of this....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top