Truth is the neocon's wooden stake

AssHatZombie said:
Not to the detriment of society in general though. That's why kiddie porn is illegal too.

ANd when we're discussing national policy it must consider the betterment of all citizens, not just consider how rich people want to shape society to guarantee the perpetuation of their personal fortunes.
Click to expand...

You gotta realize that they don't believe in society. They would step over dead bodies on their way to work and have nothing but distain for the rotting corpses that got in their way. The only thing that matters to the neocons is that their corporate masters make billions by milking the people of this country.

It's time to destroy monopolistic corporatism in this country.
 
Crashk said:
You gotta realize that they don't believe in society. They would step over dead bodies on their way to work and have nothing but distain for the rotting corpses that got in their way. The only thing that matters to the neocons is that their corporate masters make billions by milking the people of this country.

It's time to destroy monopolistic corporatism in this country.
Click to expand...

Yet I am completely surrounded by rich liberals here in San Franicsco Crash. How do you explain that? I mean I can list my Democratic neighbors to you if you would like starting with Getty oil, Diane Finestein's investor husband, Shorenstein real estate and on and on I could go.

I've had ex co-workers who were Democrats ask my why I think they don't want to make money just as bad as the next person.

How do you explain those types away Crash?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Try having a little knowledge of something before your fingers hit the keys...makes you look less foolish.

Neoconservative

1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
(Merriam-Webster)

Now, that being said....do you have anything to say about Weiner's statement's on the House floor?
Click to expand...

Threedee said:
Neither of those definitions are accurate at all. Many of the founders of the New Right were members of the Old Left. They were not neoliberals at all.

The "old Left" were 'liberals', hence the first definition, " a former liberal espousing political conservatism"

As for foreign policy (and this is where Asshate gets it half right), neoconservatives tend to have a foreign policy that is not merely assertive of democracy, but is wrapped around Israeli interests.
Click to expand...

Which does NOT disprove the second definition, "assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means", and if you need further proof, just look at the PNAC agenda and then our actions in South America and Western Africa for the last 30 years or so.

The definition is solid. Now, anything to say about Weiner's statement on the House floor?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Here's New York Rep. Anthony Weiner putting it all in no-uncertain-terms regarding GOP opposition to healthcare reform. This guy has been tireless in pushing for the single payer option, and not being afraid to challenge those in his own party as well:

Weiner Offends The GOP On House Floor: You’re All ‘Owned’ By The ‘Insurance Industry’!


http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/24/...er-subsidiary/
Click to expand...

Superfreak said:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09

It would seem BOTH parties are in the pockets of the insurance companies....

With the majority of contributions coming to the party that happens to be in power at the time.
Click to expand...

As I said to another poster, I would like someone to ask Weiner about his own party......but going by YOUR link, the GOP's economic beholden to the insurance companies is TWICE that of the Dems....so Weiner's statement pretty much stands, albeit with political myopia.
 
cawacko said:
Yet I am completely surrounded by rich liberals here in San Franicsco Crash. How do you explain that? I mean I can list my Democratic neighbors to you if you would like starting with Getty oil, Diane Finestein's investor husband, Shorenstein real estate and on and on I could go.

I've had ex co-workers who were Democrats ask my why I think they don't want to make money just as bad as the next person.

How do you explain those types away Crash?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with correctly identifying the beliefs of neocons?
 
Damocles said:
First you say this:

That is your opinion. Given the myriad of statements from various teabaggers, other than being anti-Obama one would be hard pressed to say exactly how far their conservatism goes. But make no mistake, there's nothing "liberal" about their backers, promoters and the vast majority of the members. New conservatism is an apt description of them.
Click to expand...

(bolding is mine)

Then this:

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Untrue.....I'm very specific as to whom I label a neocon and why...given the circumstance at the time. If you're silly enough to think otherwise given the chronology of the posts, that's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

your first portion of your post belies what you say here, in that portion you say that "nothing liberal" is all that it takes. That simply because of that assessment "new conservative" fits. Then in the next you say you are specific. You aren't.

You simply label anybody who you disagree with to be "neocon" because it is the word of the day. Neocons are rare, and thankfully so.
Click to expand...

Sorry Damo, but your convoluted logic doesn't fly.....my sentence in context points out that it's more than just not being liberal about the various groups that fall under the category of neocon. Check out the definition I gave to PMP, if you need clarification. And if you're going to pretend that's what's been quoted in the media in the last year from these groups is anything near what is considered "liberal", then I'd like to have a shot of what you're drinking!

Bottom line: the bullshit that has been flown by such groups as the teabaggers and birthers, at C-PAC, etc., has been time and again exposed and proven to fall under the category of "new conservatives". The leadership/authors of the PNAC agenda time and again surfaces to mouth platitudes to these groups on seperate occasions in one fashion or another. TFB if they or you don't like the negative connotations that have become associated with the abbreviated term "neocon"....you talk the talk, you get the label. The content is what is spoken, the logical conclusion is based on that. A matter of fact, a matter of history.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
Nope. to be a neocon you have to simply put both globalization zealotry and israel above the well being of the american people. Many more democrats actually qualify than realize it.
Click to expand...

Not really:

Neoconservative

1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
(Merriam-Webster)

Now, that being said....do you have anything to say about Weiner's statement's on the House floor?
 
Southern Man said:
To some it is a racial slur, And they are SO full of it, as many attribute the coining of the phrase to two men, one Jewish and one NOT Jewish. And as I schooled you LONG ago, many if not the majority of heavy hitters of the neocon punditry are NOT Jewish. So that old red herring just won't fly. and there is no one who identifies themselves as a "neocon". So if some yahoo marches down the street flying the swastika, and calls himself a "christian socialist reformer" and advocates removing jews, non-whites from America by any means necessary, we can't call them "nazi's" or "white supremacists" because they don't call themselves that?:palm:Give me a break with your bullshit, Southie....you couldn't even sell that dreck to your momma.

With regards to "changing the subject", look at the title of the thread that you started: " Truth is the neocon's wooden stake". I'm sticking right on the subject, your insistence on vilifying some boogieman that doesn't exist, like a vampire that must be killed by driving an oak stake through its heart. :lol:
Click to expand...

No chuckles, you're doing what you usually do...play dumb. If subject titles were to be treated as EXACT guidelines to a posts contents, then the vast majority of threads on these boards would be removed. Bottom line: you don't have the brains or the stones to debate what Weiner said on the Congressional floor. And since you run like a coward from the definition of new conservatives ("neocon" for short), your babbling attempt to dodge down that venue is irrelevent. But do repeat your disproved assertions to keep avoiding your failures....the last word is SO important to you (maybe you can substitute "ironic" for "I know you are, but what am I" as your final salvo...seems to be your latest mental tic). Carry on
 
Taichiliberal said:
No chuckles, you're doing what you usually do...play dumb. If subject titles were to be treated as EXACT guidelines to a posts contents, then the vast majority of threads on these boards would be removed. Bottom line: you don't have the brains or the stones to debate what Weiner said on the Congressional floor. And since you run like a coward from the definition of new conservatives ("neocon" for short), your babbling attempt to dodge down that venue is irrelevent. But do repeat your disproved assertions to keep avoiding your failures....the last word is SO important to you (maybe you can substitute "ironic" for "I know you are, but what am I" as your final salvo...seems to be your latest mental tic). Carry on
Click to expand...
So now your thread title has nothing to do with your OP. :palm:
 
Taichiliberal said:
Sorry Damo, but your convoluted logic doesn't fly.....my sentence in context points out that it's more than just not being liberal about the various groups that fall under the category of neocon. Check out the definition I gave to PMP, if you need clarification. And if you're going to pretend that's what's been quoted in the media in the last year from these groups is anything near what is considered "liberal", then I'd like to have a shot of what you're drinking!

Bottom line: the bullshit that has been flown by such groups as the teabaggers and birthers, at C-PAC, etc., has been time and again exposed and proven to fall under the category of "new conservatives". The leadership/authors of the PNAC agenda time and again surfaces to mouth platitudes to these groups on seperate occasions in one fashion or another. TFB if they or you don't like the negative connotations that have become associated with the abbreviated term "neocon"....you talk the talk, you get the label. The content is what is spoken, the logical conclusion is based on that. A matter of fact, a matter of history.
Click to expand...
If you actually followed the definition this conversation would be pointless. Unfortunately you do not. You simply pretend that anybody who disagrees with TCL is a "neocon" then attempt to cover it after like a cat in the cat box.

Again. Thankfully neocons are rare, we've had enough of them
 
Southern Man said:
So now your thread title has nothing to do with your OP. :palm:
Click to expand...

Notice folks, how this intellectual coward steadfastly avoids my pointing out the glaring flaw in his logic, and tries to reassert his dodge as the substituted discussion of this threads original post.

[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=615219&postcount=51"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Truth is the neocon's wooden stake[/ame]

He believes by repeating his dreck until he has the last word will validate his painfully obvious deception. Pity poor Southie.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Sorry Damo, but your convoluted logic doesn't fly.....my sentence in context points out that it's more than just not being liberal about the various groups that fall under the category of neocon. Check out the definition I gave to PMP, if you need clarification. And if you're going to pretend that's what's been quoted in the media in the last year from these groups is anything near what is considered "liberal", then I'd like to have a shot of what you're drinking!

Bottom line: the bullshit that has been flown by such groups as the teabaggers and birthers, at C-PAC, etc., has been time and again exposed and proven to fall under the category of "new conservatives". The leadership/authors of the PNAC agenda time and again surfaces to mouth platitudes to these groups on seperate occasions in one fashion or another. TFB if they or you don't like the negative connotations that have become associated with the abbreviated term "neocon"....you talk the talk, you get the label. The content is what is spoken, the logical conclusion is based on that. A matter of fact, a matter of history.
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
If you actually followed the definition this conversation would be pointless. Unfortunately you do not. You simply pretend that anybody who disagrees with TCL is a "neocon" then attempt to cover it after like a cat in the cat box.


Again. Thankfully neocons are rare, we've had enough of them
Click to expand...

Sorry Damo, but your smokescreen is not cutting it here. Essentially all you've done is just repeat assertions and accusations. I've already addressed them an logically disproved both. So if you don't have anything to say about Weiner's statements on the Congressional floor, I'd say we're done here.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Not really:

Neoconservative

1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
(Merriam-Webster)

Now, that being said....do you have anything to say about Weiner's statement's on the House floor?
Click to expand...

so as i read thru this thread i had to laugh, the answer was no. over and over again. LOL

the way i see it Taichiliberal-1 / Neocons-0
oops sorry about that neocon thing neocons.

LOL
 
Southern Man said:
How ironic. :palm:
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between a post and a thread title, stupid? Here's the opening post, again.
Here's New York Rep. Anthony Weiner putting it all in no-uncertain-terms regarding GOP opposition to healthcare reform. This guy has been tireless in pushing for the single payer option, and not being afraid to challenge those in his own party as well:


Weiner Offends The GOP On House Floor: You’re All ‘Owned’ By The ‘Insurance Industry’!

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/24/anthony-weiner-subsidiary/
Click to expand...

You're so gutless Southie, it almost defies description.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
More irony. Now about that neocon bogeyman...
Click to expand...

See Post #51 and #58.....thanks for doing EXACTLY what I said you'd do, Southie.

Well, my work is done folks....like all intellectually bankrupt and cowardly neocon parrots...Southie dare not honestly debate any information that contradicts the neocon mantras of GOP punidtry and teabag mindset. I leave him to his predictable self implosion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top