I still don't understand why the SA continues to praise Reagan. The government grew an incredible amount during his presidency. IMO Reagan was the one who finalized the sale of the Republican party to those who run it today.
Neoconservatism is made up of Jews (dual Israeli citizens) and their whores in congress. Their interest is in expanding the Israeli world empire on the backs of the US soldiers & taxpayers.. They don't give a rats ass about America.
My mother got her grad school recommendation written by Russell Kirk at Hillsdale College... Russell Kirk's closest friend before he died was my economics professor--an avid and unapologetic libertarian.
Hannity and Levin hate Glenn Beck because he sides with Libertarians. Libertarians hate Glenn Beck because they watch Comedy Central and believe the lie of "blowback." The lie of "blowback" is refuted every day in the streets of Switzerland, Sweden, Holland, and Demark. The lie of "blowback" suggests we're "over there" and that's the cause. All of the nations mentioned suffer more hatred and riots from Islam and are not "over there." They've been murdered by Muslims but are not "over there.
Many of us Read Mises, Rothbard, Hayek before most people are out of the bed for the day. -- That was kinda funny though.
Pretty Laughable though that you would totally negate the EU military presence in the middle east. I wonder if I invite myself over to your home with some Guns and tell you to do things my way if their will be some blowback? I would guess there would be.
Blowback is a hard thing to swallow for those who love the Welfare/Warfare State
The Idea the EU and UN are not over in the middle east having their governments print up fiat paper for these governments is a complete lie. We would not tolerate people doing this to us and few would allow someone to just come to their home, point guns and accept this new lifestyle change by those pointing the guns at them.
But, Common sense is anything but common these days and there are a lot of Leo Strauss followers who think they are conservative by advocating govt Growth.
@thomaserossi If blow-back wasn't an issue ... and Muslims attacked any non muslim people simply because they were "infidels" ... there are countries closer to them than America and Switzerland , Sweden , Holland and Denmark to attack.....But do those other countries who also aren't muslim happen to send billions to Israel each year ? Lol
@thomaserossi Oh and btw , Libertarians hate Glenn Beck because Glen Beck is a fucking Neo Con , He would sacrafice us ALL for Israel thinking it would score him points in the afterlife. Ever since he "got religion" his show has went to shit. Im not anti christian btw ... I just dislike HIS type of christian that puts Israel on a pedestal above all others even their own people.
@ladistar He is a neo con , His Support of Israel and his "passion" and "dedication" to convince his listeners and viewers that we MUST protect and support Israel ... is classic Neo Conservatism. 3 things u can spot a neo con by ...Their Love of invasive government programs (patriot act) ... Their urge to have the government HELP big business (corporatism) And their Undying support of Israel no matter the costs to America.
@thomaserossi Lol , u seem to forget ...All of those nations also have heavy jewish representation in their leadership circles ... especially Switzerland in particular. They also have sent massive amounts of money to Israel over the years ...and ding ding ding ..alot of Muslims who hate Europeans DUE to whats going on back in their homeland ...happen to live in Those nations.
I've just started reading Mises's HUMAN ACTION. It a wonderful exposition of libertarian thought. A great book and one of the thinkers who should guide us if we are to retake the conservative movement.
it is free, therefore i no longer believe in a cruel murderous,abortionist, racist-eugenicist, terrorist celestial dictator.
.
nor i believe trees spoke, dinos lived with humen, woman came from a rib, people walked on water etc etc..
.the one with out a free mind is not me, but knowing how conservative=religious people are enslaved to an archaic and retrograde creed, i do no expect you to see reality as is, not asit was spoon fed to you.
@ZegatonZ - Spoken like a Marxist hate monger. You chose your words and your diction is consistent with communists who have murdered more, raped more, aborted more, eugenicized infinitely more, and terrorized more than any believer in all of history combined. This is where your pretend to understand Nazism and lie. This is where you've never read Mein Kampf and try to lie and come up with some bull shit 2nd hand gossip about Hitler and the Nazi movement. Go ahead. Please do it.
At his core, I think Reagan, who came from the DNC, was a libertarian. But he also realized that while the party he was leaving was going to bankrupt the country, the party he was going to wouldn't elect him unless he brought social conservatives on board. Economically, it was clear he was trying to be libertarian, but in order to achieve some of those objectives, he had to appoint George Bush Sr as his VP and bring in other social cons, and inevitably they took over the party when he left.
Then maybe you are not socially conservative, but personally conservative. If you want to be socially conservative, you have to believe in SOCIETY. Either society says conservative values matter or not. The State either promotes natural marriage and child-bearing or undermines it, whether by decree or by equating it with any random relationship. The latter is clearly the bigger threat. Don't tell me liberalism is conservatism!!!
Libertarianism is NOT conservative. Neither is neoconservatism, but that is a different issue.
Pure libertarianism is anti-clerical, anti-tradition, anti-national boundaries, anti-protectionist, anti-paternalist, anti-authority...well, what is conservative here?
True conservatives do not believe in "classical liberal individualism", they believe in a secure society with a stable social order, deferent to traditional bonds, like the Church/catholic-orthodox faith.
@maxime32 "what is conservative here?" anti-protectionist, anti-paternalist, anti-authority.
As to your religion and society stuff so do we. Look up Thomas Woods.
I am a libertarian and a damn proud conservative i go to church i believe in traditional values, however i do not believe that have the right to force other top do so a swell.
Conservative values are noblesse oblige, the natural order of inequality, but of one that preserves itself by an obligation of the upper class to the lower class rather than the libertarian/liberal "rights" philosophy by which inequality may go towards infinity in the name of "freedom" as the highest obligation is to oneself.
Some libertarians may be personally conservative, obviously, but social conservatism concerns the acceptance of morals and traditions by SOCIETY and the STATE.
@maxime32 How is that different from libertarianism? yes the rich have an obligation to elp the poor, however that is a moral obligation, not one that should be mandated by the state. Most wealthy people give considerable amounts of their wealth to charities, and those who don't end up investing that money which ends up creating jobs, thus helping the poor that way. Limiting economic freedom does not help the poor.
Society should, can, and does enforce social norms. however the state shouldn't
@PikSokolit thank you for letting me know you are out there and that we can both peacefully coexist :)
i will argue that Ron Paul is not as socially conservative as you (or anyone) might believe. He in my opinion is a True Free-mArket Anarchist - get the government out of our lives and let people choose how they want to live, so long as they do not infringe on anyone else's freedoms. Whatever his truly personal beliefs may be are irrelevant because he is about true individual liberty.
Ron Paul is paleoconservative. That moron Sean Hannity is a progressive, big govt neocon. George W Bush ran as a paleocon in 2000, but after 9/11 he was convinced by his neocon advisers that military intervention was good.
Ron Paul is not socially liberal, he is 100% pro-life and against gay marriage but he believes the state governments should control the status of marriage. Libertarians are generally socially liberal and would support gay marriage and abortion. Also, libertarians in many cases are pro-war. Barry Goldwater, probably the most prominent libertarian in modern American history wanted to nation build and bomb the soviets.
If Austrian Economics Were Ever Implemented, The United States Would Look Like Detroit In Robocop. Other Than That, Libertarian Social Stances Get A Thumbs up From Here
Speaking of conservatism & libertarianism,one of my favorite conservative intellectuals was Frank S. Meyer. Before his death in 1972,Meyers was a proponent of a brand of conservatism called Fusionism which argued that one cannot have a virtuous society without virtuous men & one cannot have virtuous men if men lack the freedom to either choose or reject virtue. For instance,if I give to charity at gunpoint then the motivation for my giving is'nt my virtue,but my fear. Sounds libertarian to me.
Conservatives and liberals (they call themselves progressives nowadays), are both essentially statists. Statism is essenatilly authoritarian socialism, and it is 180 degrees out of phase with libertarianism. In act while most libertarians hold conservative viewpoints, many hold liberal viewpoints, and most hold both.
Its not two dimensional, thing of it this way: Draw a diamond. Atn lower lower part of the diamond write statist. To the left point progressive, to the right point conservative. At the tip write libertarian. You can now see the true political spectrum, and see why many conservatives are statists as well. Conservatives can be statists just like progressives may not be. And both can be the opposite. Not all conservatives are libertarians.
Rush was joking. Reagan said Rush was one of greatest voices of conservatism. I wonder if Reagan gave you that much praise? You have your history all wrong and Hannity has given Ron Paul air time something most networks never did. Calling Rush a statist is like calling a hamburger a truck to use your trite analogy. You seek to divide the conservative movement when we need to be united more than ever against the statist.
Lemme ask ya'll a question. Imagine you're a member of the fascist left; a writer for firedoglake or for the Daily Kos. You come across this video and read a few of the posts on this forum. How do you react?
THIS kind of infighting is what has given the left the ability to do what they are doing now. This is not the time for this crap. Bitch about Republicans when they HAVE SOME POWER. It's time to get with the times.
The reason Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, & co. don't call themselves neo-cons is because they ARE not neo-cons. They have no real ideologies; they are merely support whatever the Republican Party leadership currently favors. Ex.: Hannity OPPOSED nation building and intervention in Kosovo during Clinton but supported all Bush's wars. Neo-con is rarely mentioned on Fox because it might cause the proles to think to much and question which flavor of conservatism the viewers actually support.
I definitely think that Libertarians and Conservatives need to talk to each other way more. Libertarians need to be tempered by the understanding that political ideals do not per se equal political accomplishment, or rather be persuaded that they should take the political process seriously. Conservatives need to genuinely embrace free markets and temper their shotgun, rough-rider vision of foreign policy and national defense. A synthesis of these two ideologies would be formidable and marvelous.
@Wormtail81 the big issue is that the republicans and "right wing" talk show hosts are just in it to please the corporations, as are the democrats. There are no real conservatives or liberals in politics. its all a bunch of sellouts and no one, other than Ron Paul and Alan Grayson, that actually believes in anything more than their wallet. Phonies everywhere.
@Wormtail81 "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." -Ronald Reagan 1975 There was once upon a time, but the hard line religious right and the actual neo-conservatives crept into his admin and slowly pushed the libertarians out. Now the Republican Party is run by those 2 groups, their sympathizers and yes-men like Mitt Romney. The religious right needs to realize their best bet to preserve values is at the state and local levels.
You don't know what libertarianism is.. do you? If you did, you would understand that there is no compromise possible between conservatism and libertarianism. For whatever wealth libertarian ideas and institutions produce, conservatives hijack and use to enforce their will with overwhelming force. It is time for the divide. Let conservatives pay for their national security state. As a libertarian, I want no part of it.
libertarianism is radical left wing pro-nazi pro-ku klux klan mega pro-abortion and pro- cancer politcal theory. Libertarianism makes me sick to my rectum as a terror fighting ass kicking american who bleeds the red white and blue and loves Sean Hannity.
It seems to me that the big argument you so-called libertarians have with what you call "neo-cons" is Iraq and Afghanistan. Which would make President Obama a "neo-con" I suppose, seeing as how he talks a good game about ending wars, closing GTMO, etc, but he continues to pursue them anyway.
There is a good argument to be had about Iraq/Afghanistan, but the fact that one supports or opposes finishing the job doesn't place them in a separate ideology.
If America is serious about fighting this War on Terror our top priority should be to order an unmanned drone missile strike and cluster bombing of Ron Paul's house in Lake Jackson, Texas and then nuke his entire congressional district so the terrorist loving moonbat liberal ass clowns that voted him into office can never breed.
Once again, the cause of your "Terrorism" is people like you who wants to bomb the world into submission to our godless ways imposing our drugs, gangs, pregant teens, abortion, homosexuality, and other decadent ways upon the world. The world will never surrender to you nor should it.
These hopelessly blind ignorant Neo Cons are yet to even acknowledge that the Wars are the reason why they got slaughtered in 06 and 08. Damn I hate these wars yet Beck, Hannity, Oreilly, Rush Levin and most conservative pundits keep right on defending them!! Disgusting!!
@tolerantrobbob Paul like most of all our leaders up till about 100 years ago preferred to stay out of entanling alliances.. In other word they would have opposed invasion of free sovereign nations. Seems many Republicans today do as their leader suggests without engaging their brains. They lone for more Arab blood.. Makes them feel like big men I suppose.
@coaltrader07 So we should just let israel get nucked by iran and not take our fight to the terrorists over in some third world rat hole. THat line of thinking makes me sick.
libertarians believe in TRUE Individualism and Liberties - each person is responsible for themselves and can do with themselves as they please, so long as they do NOT cross anyone else's personal space.
And Libertarians believe in small, non-intrusive government, there ONLY to protect the Rights of the Individual.
@enemyartistkristofeR well, your part right. Libertarianism can range from a minarchist government like you've described, up to a stateless society (anarchy). I happen to lean towards a stateless society altogether, but I definetely prefer a minarchy to what we have now.
@dksilentbob I agree. I am a free market Anarchist, I too believe in a Stateless Non-Coercive Society, one based on Voluntarism - I was only make the point for your "generic libertarian" stance.
This may be outdated but your statement about Libertarians is not entirely true.
A libertarian can be a social conservative just as they can be social liberal. The idea is that whether you are socially conservative or liberal so long as you do not use or authorize government to interject your views upon others. Case in point is prop 8 in CA. Both sides are trying to use government to get a point across. Get rid of government from licensing and you restore balance
@shiftstart Yea, you are right, a libertarian CAN be socially conservative - but in my experiences they are generally not. And if they are, I agree w/ you, they can be as long as they do NOT force their views or try to use government to enforce their views on others.
As far as Prop 8 goes I do think trying to stop someone from marrying is anti-constitutional, anti-freedom. Oppose it if you don't like it, I even think a church has the choice to say NO if they are against it, but outlaw it, No!
Remember, prop 8 is not to outlaw gay marriage but rather have government not recognize it. Two different things. After all how many times have we seen all over TV a typical gay marriage being video taped at an alter? Plenty! If it was illegal, you would have SWAT jump down from the roof tops crashing the gay party.
@shiftstart having government not recoognize something is basically the same as outlawing it - it means that gay people cannot get married, share healthcare, or whatever it is that married people do.
The fact that the government is willing to or unwilling to recognize a private matter such as marriage, relationships etc, make it wrong.
The government has no business in peoples personal life, whether its their sexuality, if they get married or not, if they want to smoke pot, whatever!
@shiftstart yea, if people want to get married it should be between them - however they decide to do it, celebrate it, use a ring, a rope cut themselves and mingle their blood together, I couldn't care less who or how they get married as long as both parties are consenting. Marriage should be a bond between two people, heck in some religions multiple people, have a blast have a ball - but the government needs to stay the hell out of peoples marriage, thats for sure!
Sure it makes sense. There is nothing stopping gays to marry in a church. What is marriage? It is a symbolic ceremony. But gays care less about the symbolic ceremony part. In the end they all want that government license that says they are married. Thousand years ago marriage was just as symbolic and government did not issue a license. To solve this simple problem, just get government out of marriage license business and the suffering stops.
civil marriages are not symbolic, they carry a lot of weight; if you do not believe it, see the consequences for a couple being married vs not being married; Marriage is a contract, and federal government is there to make sure no creed negates that contract on the basis of race, gender, sexual preferences for example;
history teaches us that the church is not a just institution;
again. marriage is a contract between two consenting adults not closely related by blood
.thousands of years ago marriages was both symbolic and real; it was also a contract, and each society has different clauses that regulate that contract ; and as all contracts when there was no way of putting it on written record, it was a verbal agreement
we learned by mistakes, and forming a family with no uniformed rules is disastrous fo everyone involved.
"Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults not closely related by blood" This is your opinion.
"Marriage is not about a symbolic ceremony, its about being equally protected" This just doesn't make sense. So long as you see marriage as a "Contract" and associate it with "law" and embrace the Fed to oversee a private personal choice, you will continue to suffer. The "contract" you speak of is under the eyes of God. Clearly there is no future for this western civilization.
right now is between a man and a woman, but it we are to apply the constitution, it should read as i stated it; and we will change it, the same way we did equal but separate;
just a few years ago, the country was divided 62 to 38 agaist allowing gays to marry, right now it stands around 52 to 48.
.
yes, the federals have to protect the right of every individual, otherwise conservatives would enslave or segregate blacks, have women as property of man and so forth.
Libertarians would say get government out of the marriage business all together ... Not justify positive law used to "give" or "deny" a marriage - Prop 8 is another example of failed positive law. We should all be fighting to get the govt out of the business all together.
We go along with the needing a govt Permit to get married we are asking the govt for permission and this is wrong. Marriage is a right not a privilege and governments can only give privileges the often take away.
Are individuals born Free to marry? YES -- Free to marry as they see fit.
Your case that people need a permit given by the government for "permission" to get married is total statist garbage. Before the 19th Century the govt was not even in the business of marriage. They got in it For TAXATION purposes.
A government cannot give or deny a marriage. It's between individuals.
Better look in the mirror next time you throw an ad hominem of a liberal.
Oh come on, is everyone too chicken to just say it - "Neo-Conservative" just means pro-Israel Jews. They're even for open borders. Stop beating around the Bush.
The left learned this lesson a long time ago. You really think Obama is a JFK Democrat? His Chicago 'New Party' certainly wasn't.
Ron Paul is an ideological libertarian, but he is a party Republican. He has learned the lesson. If you have a problem with the way Republicans do things, change them from the inside. Or, you could always vote for the third party and let the collectivists rule. At least that way you could say it wasn't your fault when they call you names right?
Look at all of the conservatives fight with each other over a name that the left turned into a bad word.
Those of you who use the term neo-con are those who have been backed into a corner. You are afraid to be identified with an ideology that takes a lot of heat from collectivist utopians. You are cowards.
You have joined the front lines of the war to turn your back and fight your own team. There are only TWO sides. Like it or not, and there will only be two. Pick one, or fester in cowardice.
First, the term neo-con was chosen by the neo-cons to differentiate themselves from traditional conservatives. Neo-cons came to the Republican Party from the left, as they were big government war hawks who saw their Democratic Party begin to move away from them. Neo-cons are collectivists as much as and if not greater than liberal Democrats. As they support massive government in every aspect of policy.
Give me one Republican politician who has used the term neo-con to refer to himself in the last 2 years.
As I said, there are a total of less than 5 in total, who have ever used this term to refer to themselves, and I couldn't name one who currently uses this term to refer to themselves. The current context of "neo-conservatism" is an idea promoted by the left as a smear tactic.
Give me one Republican politician who has used the term neo-con to refer to himself in the last 2 years.
Here's another experiment: Go to a Republican gathering of some sort.. A tea party, a CPAC, something like that. Ask them who among you would call yourselves a neo-con? If you get a single "yes" answer, write home.
@BernieEOD You're exactly right. Which proves that the term not a definition that someone calls themselves, but an insult meant to depict political enemies in a negative light.
Any use of the prefix, "neo" brings to mind the term "neo-nazi". Thus the term is a favorite of the left and other enemies of mainstream Republicans.
Many of the talking heads and intellectuals still refer to themselves as neo-cons. Irving kristol coined the term. Originally they did not have a negative conotation because no neo-con had been in power. But then the Bushn Admin (the first real neo-con to have power) came around and everyone knows what a neo-con is. It has now become a negative term. A neo-con is a big government republican at home and abroad, who desires to "spread democracy" around the world. Neo-cons are not conservative.
@tfboyle That's really special. You're right, as I mentioned there are less than a handful of activists who call themselves neo-cons. But as I predicted, you were unable to provide me with a politician who currently refers to themselves with this term. Regardless of what your concocted notion of what a neo-con is, if such a thing ever existed at the present time there are none in power. Get over it.
Also, I used to be a neo-con as well as everyone else in the UNH College Republicans when I was President, and we all called ourselves neo-cons. But most of realized that neo-cons are not real conservatives as they are against limited government. They are not our allies and never have been, just look at the last Admin, all we got were a bunch of foreign wars and massive government at home. How could you call the people who pushed those policies "allies" or "friends" of the conservative movement?
I often view American politics as two teams on the field engaging in great battle in front of their respective adoring fans.
Of course, the adoring fans do not realize that no matter which team wins, their life will not change particularly much and that, in fact, it is really the two teams on the field against the spectators, not each other.
These labels are just lines of division the collectivists want us to embrace. Every ideology has people who are liked and disliked. I think we can all agree that all of us would take any conservative over any collectivist.
Too bad there are only 2 or 3 non-collectivists in Congress (or if you are really anal about the definition you could easily argue they are all collectivists).
@tfboyle Sure, you could argue that. You could also argue that Bush was responsible for 9/11. F me, but the lines of philosophical division couldn't be clearer right now. If you don't like the way things are, change them from the inside. Standing outside and casting condemnation only gives ammunition to the real collectivists; Democrats & friends.
A conservative is a conservative is a conservative. Dont accept the name calling of the collectivists. They will demonize labels in an attempt to make you ashamed of who you are. They will push you into a corner until you are no longer able to identify yourself with an ideology anyone is able to recognize. You are a conservative, a Libertarian, a Republican and an individualist. We are all of these. Embrace the hated terms of your enemy and stand up for what YOU believe in without fear of labels
Your 'neo-con' doesn't exist. Few men have ever used this label to describe themselves, no one refers to themselves using this term today and no one espouses the ideals the supposed 'neo-cons' follow. You are right that libertarianism is conservatism. You are wrong that there is a clear ideological line of division. Some are just better conservatives than others. Individualist is the best word to describe us I think. Your argument is about semantics.
Again you are wrong about the term neo-con. Irving Kristol coined the term for himself and it is used to describe "conservatives" who don't mind big government at home or abroad. It also was a way to distinguish this new brand of militeristc, deomocracy spreading war hawks from the traditional non-interventionist and war as a last resort conservatives.
I quote: "It was the Socialist Michael Harrington, indeed, who coined the term "neoconservative" for this small band and their friends, intending it as an insult."
If you are to use the National Review as your primary source, you must also accept that I am right and you are wrong.
@default013 Correction: The previous poster used the Weekly Standard as his source. The two rags are so alike it is easy to confuse them. If you are an opponent of the right wing and one who uses the term neo-con, then both of the magazines are neo-con rags.
Personally I would call them old-school blue-blood Republicans - or moderates for short.
I highly recommend you read the following article from the Weekly Standard, written by none other than Irving Kristol himself. There most certainly a distinct neo-conservationism and it predominates conservatism in the US today; though that is beginning to change.
@bobjman Good job, you found one of the times that the term has been used by a conservative. Problem is, the article was written in response to a liberal who as always, was using the term to smear conservatives; Howard Dean. Kristol is one of the handful of Republicans who has EVER used the term to refer to himself. Pat Buchanan is another. Although, if you asked them today if they would refer to themselves as 'neo-cons', somehow I doubt you would get a "yes" answer.
@default013 You're wrong about the history of the term. Kristol used the term in a positive sense to define his beliefs in Esquire in 1979. Krauthammer is another neo-conservative intellectual who uses that term to describe himself. As Kristol said himself; their main thrust is an highly aggressive foreign policy that shamelessly forms alliances with whomever supports the policy aims of the moment (i.e. Hussein and Bin Laden). Buchanan is a self-described paleo-con to contrast himself.
@bobjman Give me one Republican politician who has used the term neo-con to refer to himself in the last 2 years. As I have repeated and proven several times over on this board, you can count the number of Republicans who have used this term to describe themselves on one hand. Furthermore, the term was coined by the socialist, Michael Harrington to be used as a pejorative. You are right about Buchanan, he no longer refers to himself with the term either that I am aware of. Wonder why?
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter who coined the phrase. Marx was the first to use the term capitalist in the modern sense, but I proudly admit to being a capitalist. The number of Republicans who self-identify with neo-conservatism has always been small but they've wielded a highly disproportionate influence. Maintaining a low profile was always the point. Neo-con describes a major part of the Republican Party leadership and the Bush Admin in practice, if not rhetoric.
@bobjman NO. You miss the point. Most of the people you CALL neo-con would personally disagree with you.
Right now more than ever the choice is CLEAR. You can vote for a big government socialist democrat, or you can vote for the imperfect but freedom supporting Republican.
You bitch about not having enough freedom, but if you have a problem with Republican candidates you need to vote your candidates in in the primaries. You vote 3rd party and you prove yourself full of shit.
@bobjman You need to pick a side, criticize them in private (in person and in elections) and SUPPORT THEM IN PUBLIC. Just like any good military leader or boss will tell you to treat employees / subordinates.
Any right wing fool who uses and promotes the term and use of the term neo-con does is doing a disservice to the ideals they say they support. You like denigrating those on the right? Maybe you're on the wrong side of the isle. The capitalists are on the right. Socialists on the left.
@bobjman Health care is America's political 9/11. It is time for the right wing to STAND TOGETHER and to stop this petty bickering! If we don't the damned collectivists will roll over us like a panther tank.
Quit wasting your time tearing down your own side and pick the candidates you like. Go support them! It's easy to sit on the sidelines and bitch. But alot of people don't like taking the criticism for choosing a candidate. It's time to put up or shut up.
@bobjman Let me say one more thing. To you or I, if we are to use the term neo-con, we refer to a very small and select group of moderate Republicans. The mainstream media and the left who have popularized the term, refer to ANYONE on the right wing when they use it and primarily when the term is used THAT is how it is understood. That is what I mean when you do yourself a disservice. The time for infighting is OVER.
If the Progressives had actually hijacked the Dems, why are the wars still going on? Why is torture and secrecy at its height? The Dems have their own type of neocon war-mongering in the Brzezinski school, with its minions disporportionately in think tanks and universities.
@bobjman "Marx was the first to use the term capitalist in the modern sense, but I proudly admit to being a capitalist." Congratulations, you fell for the oldest Marxist trick in the book. America truly has lost the Cold War with its moronic anti-communism.
Funny, I'm a conservative activist who has met several politicians, activists, pundits and vast amounts of conservatives. I couldn't mention one who calls themselves a neo-con.
I think the title "the Neocon Con" would be better. Sounds like a dance; the devil's dance, don't you think? I smell sulphur---or is that the stinch of tyranny?
Or the idiocy that we need to become "energy independent" (impossible for the US with our current consumption patterns) so we don't keep going into no-win wars in the Middle East. So is that admitting we go to war for oil?? Sounds like it!
But the real solution is to have leaders who won't go to war so quickly and a populace that actually is vigilant against easy war!!
You know, that stupid lie that's easily debunked but few people actually question because their leaders are constantly parroting it, just like the lies about Iran getting nukes. Or Ahmadinejad being "the hitler of the middle east", even though he has yet to kill a single human being nor has much REAL power in Iran.
When I was looking in the political books section of Borders, or maybe it was Barnes and Noble, I came upon a very silly book called The Neocon Reader. I almost threw up in my mouth and shook my head.
Have you guys heard of Ben Wattenberg? He's a Reagan Dem but a neocon too. Actually has a show on PBS, if I recall.
The weirdest combination though comes in the form of James Woolsey. He's a liberal Democrat but a neocon on foreign policy nonetheless. He promotes "oil funds terrorists".
One of the neocons many years back in, I think, The Weekly Standard, actually wrote an article called "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy." Of course, his proposals were anything but "neo-Reaganite." They were NEOCONSERVATIVE. Shame on them for cloaking themselves in such a way.
Well thought out, and well put. You definitely shed some light on the "conservative" situation in America. I wonder how many born and raised Republicans have a mind open enoug
why do we even need a bunch of burecrats to recognize marriage in the first place?
TheJoelef 3 weeks ago
Why the hell would anyone want to pretend some obsessive shit-packing habit is a marriage? All this talk about "gay marriage" is just crap.
evergreenpotato 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012!!!
szman167 1 month ago
I still don't understand why the SA continues to praise Reagan. The government grew an incredible amount during his presidency. IMO Reagan was the one who finalized the sale of the Republican party to those who run it today.
fightforyourrights9 4 months ago in playlist More videos from southernavenger
Neoconservatism is made up of Jews (dual Israeli citizens) and their whores in congress. Their interest is in expanding the Israeli world empire on the backs of the US soldiers & taxpayers.. They don't give a rats ass about America.
truthfreedom4all 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My mother got her grad school recommendation written by Russell Kirk at Hillsdale College... Russell Kirk's closest friend before he died was my economics professor--an avid and unapologetic libertarian.
Ooftyman 4 months ago
Comment removed
Ooftyman 4 months ago
Fuck the neocons and their israeli butt buddies. No more wars and no more aid to fascist regimes like Israel and Saudi Arabia please.
We fight wars against "terror" while giving billions of dollars to the biggest terrorist supporting regimes. Retarded
bschou 7 months ago
I wouldn't consider myself a full libertarian, but I lean libertarian ALOT.
xtremejohnny69 8 months ago
Thanks for the video, when I try to explain this disctinction to people I'm often met with looks of bewilderment.
K20ej88 9 months ago
Great video! Right on!
zigzigerblat 1 year ago
Hannity and Levin hate Glenn Beck because he sides with Libertarians. Libertarians hate Glenn Beck because they watch Comedy Central and believe the lie of "blowback." The lie of "blowback" is refuted every day in the streets of Switzerland, Sweden, Holland, and Demark. The lie of "blowback" suggests we're "over there" and that's the cause. All of the nations mentioned suffer more hatred and riots from Islam and are not "over there." They've been murdered by Muslims but are not "over there.
thomaserossi 1 year ago
@thomaserossi
Many of us Read Mises, Rothbard, Hayek before most people are out of the bed for the day. -- That was kinda funny though.
Pretty Laughable though that you would totally negate the EU military presence in the middle east. I wonder if I invite myself over to your home with some Guns and tell you to do things my way if their will be some blowback? I would guess there would be.
Blowback is a hard thing to swallow for those who love the Welfare/Warfare State
Patriot4Liberty1776 1 year ago
@thomaserossi
The Idea the EU and UN are not over in the middle east having their governments print up fiat paper for these governments is a complete lie. We would not tolerate people doing this to us and few would allow someone to just come to their home, point guns and accept this new lifestyle change by those pointing the guns at them.
But, Common sense is anything but common these days and there are a lot of Leo Strauss followers who think they are conservative by advocating govt Growth.
Patriot4Liberty1776 1 year ago
@thomaserossi If blow-back wasn't an issue ... and Muslims attacked any non muslim people simply because they were "infidels" ... there are countries closer to them than America and Switzerland , Sweden , Holland and Denmark to attack.....But do those other countries who also aren't muslim happen to send billions to Israel each year ? Lol
Wonglow 9 months ago
@thomaserossi Oh and btw , Libertarians hate Glenn Beck because Glen Beck is a fucking Neo Con , He would sacrafice us ALL for Israel thinking it would score him points in the afterlife. Ever since he "got religion" his show has went to shit. Im not anti christian btw ... I just dislike HIS type of christian that puts Israel on a pedestal above all others even their own people.
Wonglow 9 months ago
@Wonglow that's just plain bullshit. Hating on the one media guy on Fox that isn't actually a neo-conservative.
ladistar 5 months ago
@ladistar He is a neo con , His Support of Israel and his "passion" and "dedication" to convince his listeners and viewers that we MUST protect and support Israel ... is classic Neo Conservatism. 3 things u can spot a neo con by ...Their Love of invasive government programs (patriot act) ... Their urge to have the government HELP big business (corporatism) And their Undying support of Israel no matter the costs to America.
Wonglow 5 months ago
@ladistar Sorry, can't agree there. Andrew Napolitano and John Stossel are the only ones. Glenn Beck is an idiot.. ;)
Ooftyman 4 months ago
@thomaserossi Lol , u seem to forget ...All of those nations also have heavy jewish representation in their leadership circles ... especially Switzerland in particular. They also have sent massive amounts of money to Israel over the years ...and ding ding ding ..alot of Muslims who hate Europeans DUE to whats going on back in their homeland ...happen to live in Those nations.
Wonglow 5 months ago
I've just started reading Mises's HUMAN ACTION. It a wonderful exposition of libertarian thought. A great book and one of the thinkers who should guide us if we are to retake the conservative movement.
sleedolfine15 1 year ago
"free you mind"
.
it is free, therefore i no longer believe in a cruel murderous,abortionist, racist-eugenicist, terrorist celestial dictator.
.
nor i believe trees spoke, dinos lived with humen, woman came from a rib, people walked on water etc etc..
.the one with out a free mind is not me, but knowing how conservative=religious people are enslaved to an archaic and retrograde creed, i do no expect you to see reality as is, not asit was spoon fed to you.
ZegatonZ 1 year ago
@ZegatonZ - Spoken like a Marxist hate monger. You chose your words and your diction is consistent with communists who have murdered more, raped more, aborted more, eugenicized infinitely more, and terrorized more than any believer in all of history combined. This is where your pretend to understand Nazism and lie. This is where you've never read Mein Kampf and try to lie and come up with some bull shit 2nd hand gossip about Hitler and the Nazi movement. Go ahead. Please do it.
thomaserossi 1 year ago
At his core, I think Reagan, who came from the DNC, was a libertarian. But he also realized that while the party he was leaving was going to bankrupt the country, the party he was going to wouldn't elect him unless he brought social conservatives on board. Economically, it was clear he was trying to be libertarian, but in order to achieve some of those objectives, he had to appoint George Bush Sr as his VP and bring in other social cons, and inevitably they took over the party when he left.
surfer53 1 year ago 7
@PikSokolit
Then maybe you are not socially conservative, but personally conservative. If you want to be socially conservative, you have to believe in SOCIETY. Either society says conservative values matter or not. The State either promotes natural marriage and child-bearing or undermines it, whether by decree or by equating it with any random relationship. The latter is clearly the bigger threat. Don't tell me liberalism is conservatism!!!
maxime32 1 year ago
Libertarianism is NOT conservative. Neither is neoconservatism, but that is a different issue.
Pure libertarianism is anti-clerical, anti-tradition, anti-national boundaries, anti-protectionist, anti-paternalist, anti-authority...well, what is conservative here?
True conservatives do not believe in "classical liberal individualism", they believe in a secure society with a stable social order, deferent to traditional bonds, like the Church/catholic-orthodox faith.
maxime32 1 year ago
@maxime32 "what is conservative here?" anti-protectionist, anti-paternalist, anti-authority.
As to your religion and society stuff so do we. Look up Thomas Woods.
I am a libertarian and a damn proud conservative i go to church i believe in traditional values, however i do not believe that have the right to force other top do so a swell.
kubaniski 1 year ago
@kubaniski
Conservative values are noblesse oblige, the natural order of inequality, but of one that preserves itself by an obligation of the upper class to the lower class rather than the libertarian/liberal "rights" philosophy by which inequality may go towards infinity in the name of "freedom" as the highest obligation is to oneself.
Some libertarians may be personally conservative, obviously, but social conservatism concerns the acceptance of morals and traditions by SOCIETY and the STATE.
maxime32 1 year ago
@maxime32 How is that different from libertarianism? yes the rich have an obligation to elp the poor, however that is a moral obligation, not one that should be mandated by the state. Most wealthy people give considerable amounts of their wealth to charities, and those who don't end up investing that money which ends up creating jobs, thus helping the poor that way. Limiting economic freedom does not help the poor.
Society should, can, and does enforce social norms. however the state shouldn't
kubaniski 1 year ago
"Both men are worse than just wrong. They're on crack."
Yeah, they're on crack. Literally. Like, they actually smoke crack. *COUGHOXYCONTINCOUGH*
LaughingMage 1 year ago
So conservatism equals classical liberalism. lol Fail
jaydyer 1 year ago
@jaydyer google Ronald Reagan libertarianism
goodinohio 1 year ago
@goodinohio Im aware of this, but Im neither a neo-con nor a libertarian.
jaydyer 1 year ago
@jaydyer oh then you must be simply a collectivist, or more precisely an idiot.
pablocoon 1 year ago
@jaydyer fail? What are you talking about you pin head? You are obviously a novice.
pablocoon 1 year ago
@pablocoon Go read Spengler and report back, retard.
jaydyer 1 year ago
@PikSokolit thank you for letting me know you are out there and that we can both peacefully coexist :)
i will argue that Ron Paul is not as socially conservative as you (or anyone) might believe. He in my opinion is a True Free-mArket Anarchist - get the government out of our lives and let people choose how they want to live, so long as they do not infringe on anyone else's freedoms. Whatever his truly personal beliefs may be are irrelevant because he is about true individual liberty.
peace.
enemyartistkristofeR 1 year ago
Goooooo team!!!!!! I will neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverrrrrrrrrrrrr vote for a mainstream rep. bastard again!!!!!
sandythebear 1 year ago
Neo-conservative. He says that like it's a bad thing.
milkchaser 1 year ago
Ron Paul is paleoconservative. That moron Sean Hannity is a progressive, big govt neocon. George W Bush ran as a paleocon in 2000, but after 9/11 he was convinced by his neocon advisers that military intervention was good.
Willredd94 1 year ago
Ron Paul is not socially liberal, he is 100% pro-life and against gay marriage but he believes the state governments should control the status of marriage. Libertarians are generally socially liberal and would support gay marriage and abortion. Also, libertarians in many cases are pro-war. Barry Goldwater, probably the most prominent libertarian in modern American history wanted to nation build and bomb the soviets.
Willredd94 1 year ago
If Austrian Economics Were Ever Implemented, The United States Would Look Like Detroit In Robocop. Other Than That, Libertarian Social Stances Get A Thumbs up From Here
omar2000089 1 year ago
@omar2000089 Detroit already looks like that.
hansonr22 1 year ago
@omar2000089 Detroit already looks like that and it sure wasn't the free market that did it.
hansonr22 1 year ago
@omar2000089 False.
Ooftyman 4 months ago
Epic Vid bro. keep them coming
gooseCha 1 year ago
wow well done
badeiser 1 year ago
I read from one of rushes books "some wars for democrasy are okay" yes rush but we're you being honest with the word "some"?,proof hes a neo-con.
shocktreatmenthead 1 year ago
God damn, thats great.
maxiemofo 1 year ago
Speaking of conservatism & libertarianism,one of my favorite conservative intellectuals was Frank S. Meyer. Before his death in 1972,Meyers was a proponent of a brand of conservatism called Fusionism which argued that one cannot have a virtuous society without virtuous men & one cannot have virtuous men if men lack the freedom to either choose or reject virtue. For instance,if I give to charity at gunpoint then the motivation for my giving is'nt my virtue,but my fear. Sounds libertarian to me.
sleedolfine15 1 year ago 3
@sleedolfine15 -very true-thanx for the source
FantomShadowz 1 year ago
Ok, when you said:
"Not only are they wrong, but they're on crack," I almost choked on my Peanut Butter sandwich. Good one man!
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
Conservative Intellectual? Whaaaaaaa?
tylertyler82 1 year ago
best videos on youtube
heyoehkah 1 year ago
Excellent video
celshader 1 year ago
Ron Paul is my president.
LiveFreeOrDieNow 1 year ago
Conservatives and liberals (they call themselves progressives nowadays), are both essentially statists. Statism is essenatilly authoritarian socialism, and it is 180 degrees out of phase with libertarianism. In act while most libertarians hold conservative viewpoints, many hold liberal viewpoints, and most hold both.
Paulsur 1 year ago
Its not two dimensional, thing of it this way: Draw a diamond. Atn lower lower part of the diamond write statist. To the left point progressive, to the right point conservative. At the tip write libertarian. You can now see the true political spectrum, and see why many conservatives are statists as well. Conservatives can be statists just like progressives may not be. And both can be the opposite. Not all conservatives are libertarians.
Paulsur 1 year ago
I'm for any party or law that benefits me personally.
Entropy56 1 year ago
Rush was joking. Reagan said Rush was one of greatest voices of conservatism. I wonder if Reagan gave you that much praise? You have your history all wrong and Hannity has given Ron Paul air time something most networks never did. Calling Rush a statist is like calling a hamburger a truck to use your trite analogy. You seek to divide the conservative movement when we need to be united more than ever against the statist.
rememberjiraya 1 year ago
This guy is amazing, I want to marry the southernavenger!
ixtasis 1 year ago
Lemme ask ya'll a question. Imagine you're a member of the fascist left; a writer for firedoglake or for the Daily Kos. You come across this video and read a few of the posts on this forum. How do you react?
THIS kind of infighting is what has given the left the ability to do what they are doing now. This is not the time for this crap. Bitch about Republicans when they HAVE SOME POWER. It's time to get with the times.
default013 1 year ago
@bobjman Great Point! I am pro-life, though, so the issues are a little bit more complicated. You cannot stereotype religious people in politics.
Wormtail81 1 year ago
The reason Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, & co. don't call themselves neo-cons is because they ARE not neo-cons. They have no real ideologies; they are merely support whatever the Republican Party leadership currently favors. Ex.: Hannity OPPOSED nation building and intervention in Kosovo during Clinton but supported all Bush's wars. Neo-con is rarely mentioned on Fox because it might cause the proles to think to much and question which flavor of conservatism the viewers actually support.
bobjman 1 year ago
I definitely think that Libertarians and Conservatives need to talk to each other way more. Libertarians need to be tempered by the understanding that political ideals do not per se equal political accomplishment, or rather be persuaded that they should take the political process seriously. Conservatives need to genuinely embrace free markets and temper their shotgun, rough-rider vision of foreign policy and national defense. A synthesis of these two ideologies would be formidable and marvelous.
Wormtail81 1 year ago
@Wormtail81 the big issue is that the republicans and "right wing" talk show hosts are just in it to please the corporations, as are the democrats. There are no real conservatives or liberals in politics. its all a bunch of sellouts and no one, other than Ron Paul and Alan Grayson, that actually believes in anything more than their wallet. Phonies everywhere.
soavifox 1 year ago
@soavifox That's why I like Jim DeMint. He is totalyy authentic. You mihgt disagree with him, but he values freedom and can dehis opinions.
Wormtail81 1 year ago
There are a few more, but you need to take Grayson off that list. He just voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act.
bobjman 1 year ago
@bobjman thats news to me. mind sharing me the source?
soavifox 1 year ago
@soavifox
He's on the yes list:
(Delete the spaces before com)
irregulartimes . com/index.php/archives/2010/02/25/patriot-act-without-reforms-passes-house-roll-call-included/
Be careful who you trust.
bobjman 1 year ago
bobjman 1 year ago
Comment removed
utubehayter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wormtail81
You don't know what libertarianism is.. do you? If you did, you would understand that there is no compromise possible between conservatism and libertarianism. For whatever wealth libertarian ideas and institutions produce, conservatives hijack and use to enforce their will with overwhelming force. It is time for the divide. Let conservatives pay for their national security state. As a libertarian, I want no part of it.
utubehayter 1 year ago
libertarianism is radical left wing pro-nazi pro-ku klux klan mega pro-abortion and pro- cancer politcal theory. Libertarianism makes me sick to my rectum as a terror fighting ass kicking american who bleeds the red white and blue and loves Sean Hannity.
tolerantrobbob 1 year ago
The vast use of the term comes from the left including the mainstream leftist media.
You guys watch too much T.V.
default013 1 year ago
It seems to me that the big argument you so-called libertarians have with what you call "neo-cons" is Iraq and Afghanistan. Which would make President Obama a "neo-con" I suppose, seeing as how he talks a good game about ending wars, closing GTMO, etc, but he continues to pursue them anyway.
There is a good argument to be had about Iraq/Afghanistan, but the fact that one supports or opposes finishing the job doesn't place them in a separate ideology.
default013 1 year ago
If America is serious about fighting this War on Terror our top priority should be to order an unmanned drone missile strike and cluster bombing of Ron Paul's house in Lake Jackson, Texas and then nuke his entire congressional district so the terrorist loving moonbat liberal ass clowns that voted him into office can never breed.
TerrorWarrior5000 1 year ago
@TerrorWarrior5000
Once again, the cause of your "Terrorism" is people like you who wants to bomb the world into submission to our godless ways imposing our drugs, gangs, pregant teens, abortion, homosexuality, and other decadent ways upon the world. The world will never surrender to you nor should it.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
These hopelessly blind ignorant Neo Cons are yet to even acknowledge that the Wars are the reason why they got slaughtered in 06 and 08. Damn I hate these wars yet Beck, Hannity, Oreilly, Rush Levin and most conservative pundits keep right on defending them!! Disgusting!!
coaltrader07 1 year ago
@coaltrader07 your a patheitic terror lovingnazi. you make me sick to my r ectum
tolerantrobbob 1 year ago
@coaltrader07 your a neo-confederate loser. God hates your and joke hunter and surrender mokey ron paul. all of you make me sick
tolerantrobbob 1 year ago
@tolerantrobbob Paul like most of all our leaders up till about 100 years ago preferred to stay out of entanling alliances.. In other word they would have opposed invasion of free sovereign nations. Seems many Republicans today do as their leader suggests without engaging their brains. They lone for more Arab blood.. Makes them feel like big men I suppose.
coaltrader07 1 year ago
@coaltrader07 So we should just let israel get nucked by iran and not take our fight to the terrorists over in some third world rat hole. THat line of thinking makes me sick.
tolerantrobbob 1 year ago
complete bitchslap
RP4409 1 year ago
Even though conservatives don't have to agree with libertarianism 100%, they must agree with having a limited government and fiscal libertarianism.
Deleanredtiger 1 year ago
actually, the neoconservatives only use the argument that spreading democracy is the goal, but a really interested in domination to ensure safety.
DCUPtoejuice 2 years ago
These days, conservatism isn't conservative.
eelzen 2 years ago 2
@eelzen: Agreed, and liberalism isn't liberal.
Philhelm 2 years ago
This is the problem with the right vs left dogma. There are so many different ways to define right and left wing.
According to this, Ron Paul is left wing.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
True Libertarians are;
More Socially Liberal than "liberals" and
More Fiscally Conservative than "conservatives"
libertarians believe in TRUE Individualism and Liberties - each person is responsible for themselves and can do with themselves as they please, so long as they do NOT cross anyone else's personal space.
And Libertarians believe in small, non-intrusive government, there ONLY to protect the Rights of the Individual.
enemyartistkristofeR 2 years ago 22
& wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if that was the law of the land as promised instead of the nanny Big Brother state we actually inhabit.
ubetcha13 2 years ago
it sure would be a wonderful thing if things were the way they were meant to be, and we were free.
peace. love. anarchy
enemyartistkristofeR 2 years ago 2
@enemyartistkristofeR well, your part right. Libertarianism can range from a minarchist government like you've described, up to a stateless society (anarchy). I happen to lean towards a stateless society altogether, but I definetely prefer a minarchy to what we have now.
dksilentbob 1 year ago
@dksilentbob I agree. I am a free market Anarchist, I too believe in a Stateless Non-Coercive Society, one based on Voluntarism - I was only make the point for your "generic libertarian" stance.
enemyartistkristofeR 1 year ago
@enemyartistkristofeR ya I figured. I thought I'd just contribute to your statement.
dksilentbob 1 year ago
@dksilentbob hey, the interaction and addition to the conversation is great, and always much appreciated.
peace. love. anarchy
enemyartistkristofeR 1 year ago
@enemyartistkristofeR
This may be outdated but your statement about Libertarians is not entirely true.
A libertarian can be a social conservative just as they can be social liberal. The idea is that whether you are socially conservative or liberal so long as you do not use or authorize government to interject your views upon others. Case in point is prop 8 in CA. Both sides are trying to use government to get a point across. Get rid of government from licensing and you restore balance
shiftstart 1 year ago
@shiftstart Yea, you are right, a libertarian CAN be socially conservative - but in my experiences they are generally not. And if they are, I agree w/ you, they can be as long as they do NOT force their views or try to use government to enforce their views on others.
As far as Prop 8 goes I do think trying to stop someone from marrying is anti-constitutional, anti-freedom. Oppose it if you don't like it, I even think a church has the choice to say NO if they are against it, but outlaw it, No!
enemyartistkristofeR 1 year ago
@enemyartistkristofeR
Remember, prop 8 is not to outlaw gay marriage but rather have government not recognize it. Two different things. After all how many times have we seen all over TV a typical gay marriage being video taped at an alter? Plenty! If it was illegal, you would have SWAT jump down from the roof tops crashing the gay party.
shiftstart 1 year ago 10
@shiftstart having government not recoognize something is basically the same as outlawing it - it means that gay people cannot get married, share healthcare, or whatever it is that married people do.
The fact that the government is willing to or unwilling to recognize a private matter such as marriage, relationships etc, make it wrong.
The government has no business in peoples personal life, whether its their sexuality, if they get married or not, if they want to smoke pot, whatever!
enemyartistkristofeR 1 year ago
@enemyartistkristofeR
Agreed. So just get rid of marriage license and you are home free.
shiftstart 1 year ago
@shiftstart yea, if people want to get married it should be between them - however they decide to do it, celebrate it, use a ring, a rope cut themselves and mingle their blood together, I couldn't care less who or how they get married as long as both parties are consenting. Marriage should be a bond between two people, heck in some religions multiple people, have a blast have a ball - but the government needs to stay the hell out of peoples marriage, thats for sure!
enemyartistkristofeR 1 year ago
@shiftstart excellent point.
pablocoon 1 year ago
@shiftstart
"prop is not to outlaw gay marriage but rather have government not recognize it"
what nonsense, what you describe it makes no difference at the end; gays cannot marry the consenting adult of their choice
period
zegatone 1 year ago
@zegatone
Sure it makes sense. There is nothing stopping gays to marry in a church. What is marriage? It is a symbolic ceremony. But gays care less about the symbolic ceremony part. In the end they all want that government license that says they are married. Thousand years ago marriage was just as symbolic and government did not issue a license. To solve this simple problem, just get government out of marriage license business and the suffering stops.
shiftstart 1 year ago
@shiftstart
"there is nothing gays from getting marry in church"
,
this country is not run by the church; not any more any way; gay marriage is one of the last vestige of that archaic, retrograde and unjust creed
.
is not about a symbolic ceremony, is about being equally protected, and as you know, equal but separate does nto hold water; neither would this
.
zegatone 1 year ago
@shiftstart
civil marriages are not symbolic, they carry a lot of weight; if you do not believe it, see the consequences for a couple being married vs not being married; Marriage is a contract, and federal government is there to make sure no creed negates that contract on the basis of race, gender, sexual preferences for example;
history teaches us that the church is not a just institution;
again. marriage is a contract between two consenting adults not closely related by blood
zegatone 1 year ago
@shiftstart
.thousands of years ago marriages was both symbolic and real; it was also a contract, and each society has different clauses that regulate that contract ; and as all contracts when there was no way of putting it on written record, it was a verbal agreement
we learned by mistakes, and forming a family with no uniformed rules is disastrous fo everyone involved.
.
again, religion has no saying in our law,
zegatone 1 year ago
@zegatone
"Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults not closely related by blood" This is your opinion.
"Marriage is not about a symbolic ceremony, its about being equally protected" This just doesn't make sense. So long as you see marriage as a "Contract" and associate it with "law" and embrace the Fed to oversee a private personal choice, you will continue to suffer. The "contract" you speak of is under the eyes of God. Clearly there is no future for this western civilization.
shiftstart 1 year ago
@shiftstart
right now is between a man and a woman, but it we are to apply the constitution, it should read as i stated it; and we will change it, the same way we did equal but separate;
just a few years ago, the country was divided 62 to 38 agaist allowing gays to marry, right now it stands around 52 to 48.
.
yes, the federals have to protect the right of every individual, otherwise conservatives would enslave or segregate blacks, have women as property of man and so forth.
.
zegatone 1 year ago
@shiftstart
the reason the feds step in, is the keep the mob or the rich from oppressing minorities or the weak;
conservatives have proven that they cannot be trusted to follow the constitution.
.
"continue to suffer".
if i am white and i chose to marry into blacks, conservatives would not permit me to have that choice;
the feds is not helping me choose; it is keeping conservatives from negating me the right to marry into blacks.
.
zegatone 1 year ago
@shiftstart
"the contract you speak of its under the eyes of god".
not in a civil marriage; god has no place in the law of the land.
.
if god is so powerful, you should not worry; he/she will make all marriages certificate he/she does not like turned into salt.
.
zegatone 1 year ago
@zegatone
I don't expect people who are still plugged to the matrix to understand. Free your mind.
shiftstart 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shiftstart
"no future fro this western civilization"
we gain a lot
we have removed conservative/religious laws that enslave blacks, made women property of men, etc etc.
.
not long ago, the conservative/ religious murdered millions of people in the name of their celestial dictator and stole the land of this people.
.
is that what you called civilization?
no thanks
zegatone 1 year ago
@shiftstart
Libertarians would say get government out of the marriage business all together ... Not justify positive law used to "give" or "deny" a marriage - Prop 8 is another example of failed positive law. We should all be fighting to get the govt out of the business all together.
We go along with the needing a govt Permit to get married we are asking the govt for permission and this is wrong. Marriage is a right not a privilege and governments can only give privileges the often take away.
Patriot4Liberty1776 1 year ago
@Patriot4Liberty1776 - Disagree. Marriage is not a right. You're not born married. Now you're sounding like a Liberal and not a Libertarian.
thomaserossi 1 year ago
@thomaserossi
Let's negate you quick.
Are individuals born Free to marry? YES -- Free to marry as they see fit.
Your case that people need a permit given by the government for "permission" to get married is total statist garbage. Before the 19th Century the govt was not even in the business of marriage. They got in it For TAXATION purposes.
A government cannot give or deny a marriage. It's between individuals.
Better look in the mirror next time you throw an ad hominem of a liberal.
Patriot4Liberty1776 1 year ago
@thomaserossi
do some research at governmentfreemarriage(DOT)com
Patriot4Liberty1776 1 year ago
I think libertarianism is a political correction of the conservatism. Good bye.
benitogarciaweblog 2 years ago
Oh come on, is everyone too chicken to just say it - "Neo-Conservative" just means pro-Israel Jews. They're even for open borders. Stop beating around the Bush.
CarryANationIII 2 years ago
The left learned this lesson a long time ago. You really think Obama is a JFK Democrat? His Chicago 'New Party' certainly wasn't.
Ron Paul is an ideological libertarian, but he is a party Republican. He has learned the lesson. If you have a problem with the way Republicans do things, change them from the inside. Or, you could always vote for the third party and let the collectivists rule. At least that way you could say it wasn't your fault when they call you names right?
default013 2 years ago 4
Look at all of the conservatives fight with each other over a name that the left turned into a bad word.
Those of you who use the term neo-con are those who have been backed into a corner. You are afraid to be identified with an ideology that takes a lot of heat from collectivist utopians. You are cowards.
You have joined the front lines of the war to turn your back and fight your own team. There are only TWO sides. Like it or not, and there will only be two. Pick one, or fester in cowardice.
default013 2 years ago
Nothing could be more wrong then what you said.
First, the term neo-con was chosen by the neo-cons to differentiate themselves from traditional conservatives. Neo-cons came to the Republican Party from the left, as they were big government war hawks who saw their Democratic Party begin to move away from them. Neo-cons are collectivists as much as and if not greater than liberal Democrats. As they support massive government in every aspect of policy.
Neo-con republicans are not on our side.
tfboyle 2 years ago
Give me one Republican politician who has used the term neo-con to refer to himself in the last 2 years.
As I said, there are a total of less than 5 in total, who have ever used this term to refer to themselves, and I couldn't name one who currently uses this term to refer to themselves. The current context of "neo-conservatism" is an idea promoted by the left as a smear tactic.
default013 1 year ago
No, any GOP who is an evil invader arrogantly claiming to liberate the world into our godless ways is a neocon. Weather he admits it or not.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Any GOP, such as?
Watch, as no one is able to answer my question.
Give me one Republican politician who has used the term neo-con to refer to himself in the last 2 years.
Here's another experiment: Go to a Republican gathering of some sort.. A tea party, a CPAC, something like that. Ask them who among you would call yourselves a neo-con? If you get a single "yes" answer, write home.
Your neo-con is a myth.
default013 1 year ago
@BernieEOD You're exactly right. Which proves that the term not a definition that someone calls themselves, but an insult meant to depict political enemies in a negative light.
Any use of the prefix, "neo" brings to mind the term "neo-nazi". Thus the term is a favorite of the left and other enemies of mainstream Republicans.
default013 1 year ago
@default013 I would consider it a description, not an insult. Whatever you want to call an ecoonomy crashing evil invader.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
Many of the talking heads and intellectuals still refer to themselves as neo-cons. Irving kristol coined the term. Originally they did not have a negative conotation because no neo-con had been in power. But then the Bushn Admin (the first real neo-con to have power) came around and everyone knows what a neo-con is. It has now become a negative term. A neo-con is a big government republican at home and abroad, who desires to "spread democracy" around the world. Neo-cons are not conservative.
tfboyle 1 year ago
@tfboyle That's really special. You're right, as I mentioned there are less than a handful of activists who call themselves neo-cons. But as I predicted, you were unable to provide me with a politician who currently refers to themselves with this term. Regardless of what your concocted notion of what a neo-con is, if such a thing ever existed at the present time there are none in power. Get over it.
default013 1 year ago
Also, I used to be a neo-con as well as everyone else in the UNH College Republicans when I was President, and we all called ourselves neo-cons. But most of realized that neo-cons are not real conservatives as they are against limited government. They are not our allies and never have been, just look at the last Admin, all we got were a bunch of foreign wars and massive government at home. How could you call the people who pushed those policies "allies" or "friends" of the conservative movement?
tfboyle 1 year ago
@default013
I often view American politics as two teams on the field engaging in great battle in front of their respective adoring fans.
Of course, the adoring fans do not realize that no matter which team wins, their life will not change particularly much and that, in fact, it is really the two teams on the field against the spectators, not each other.
sshepard94 2 years ago
These labels are just lines of division the collectivists want us to embrace. Every ideology has people who are liked and disliked. I think we can all agree that all of us would take any conservative over any collectivist.
default013 2 years ago
Too bad there are only 2 or 3 non-collectivists in Congress (or if you are really anal about the definition you could easily argue they are all collectivists).
tfboyle 1 year ago
@tfboyle Sure, you could argue that. You could also argue that Bush was responsible for 9/11. F me, but the lines of philosophical division couldn't be clearer right now. If you don't like the way things are, change them from the inside. Standing outside and casting condemnation only gives ammunition to the real collectivists; Democrats & friends.
default013 1 year ago
A conservative is a conservative is a conservative. Dont accept the name calling of the collectivists. They will demonize labels in an attempt to make you ashamed of who you are. They will push you into a corner until you are no longer able to identify yourself with an ideology anyone is able to recognize. You are a conservative, a Libertarian, a Republican and an individualist. We are all of these. Embrace the hated terms of your enemy and stand up for what YOU believe in without fear of labels
default013 2 years ago
Your 'neo-con' doesn't exist. Few men have ever used this label to describe themselves, no one refers to themselves using this term today and no one espouses the ideals the supposed 'neo-cons' follow. You are right that libertarianism is conservatism. You are wrong that there is a clear ideological line of division. Some are just better conservatives than others. Individualist is the best word to describe us I think. Your argument is about semantics.
default013 2 years ago
Again you are wrong about the term neo-con. Irving Kristol coined the term for himself and it is used to describe "conservatives" who don't mind big government at home or abroad. It also was a way to distinguish this new brand of militeristc, deomocracy spreading war hawks from the traditional non-interventionist and war as a last resort conservatives.
tfboyle 2 years ago
@tfboyle Oh contraire Mufrare :) Krystol did not coin the term. The source cited by another proponent of the term also explains its source:
article.nationalreview. com/268879/neocons/michael-novak
I quote: "It was the Socialist Michael Harrington, indeed, who coined the term "neoconservative" for this small band and their friends, intending it as an insult."
If you are to use the National Review as your primary source, you must also accept that I am right and you are wrong.
default013 1 year ago
@default013 Correction: The previous poster used the Weekly Standard as his source. The two rags are so alike it is easy to confuse them. If you are an opponent of the right wing and one who uses the term neo-con, then both of the magazines are neo-con rags.
Personally I would call them old-school blue-blood Republicans - or moderates for short.
default013 1 year ago 2
I highly recommend you read the following article from the Weekly Standard, written by none other than Irving Kristol himself. There most certainly a distinct neo-conservationism and it predominates conservatism in the US today; though that is beginning to change.
(Delete the space before the "com")
weeklystandard. com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
bobjman 2 years ago
@bobjman Good job, you found one of the times that the term has been used by a conservative. Problem is, the article was written in response to a liberal who as always, was using the term to smear conservatives; Howard Dean. Kristol is one of the handful of Republicans who has EVER used the term to refer to himself. Pat Buchanan is another. Although, if you asked them today if they would refer to themselves as 'neo-cons', somehow I doubt you would get a "yes" answer.
default013 1 year ago
bobjman 1 year ago
Comment removed
default013 1 year ago
@bobjman Give me one Republican politician who has used the term neo-con to refer to himself in the last 2 years. As I have repeated and proven several times over on this board, you can count the number of Republicans who have used this term to describe themselves on one hand. Furthermore, the term was coined by the socialist, Michael Harrington to be used as a pejorative. You are right about Buchanan, he no longer refers to himself with the term either that I am aware of. Wonder why?
default013 1 year ago
@default013
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter who coined the phrase. Marx was the first to use the term capitalist in the modern sense, but I proudly admit to being a capitalist. The number of Republicans who self-identify with neo-conservatism has always been small but they've wielded a highly disproportionate influence. Maintaining a low profile was always the point. Neo-con describes a major part of the Republican Party leadership and the Bush Admin in practice, if not rhetoric.
bobjman 1 year ago 16
@bobjman NO. You miss the point. Most of the people you CALL neo-con would personally disagree with you.
Right now more than ever the choice is CLEAR. You can vote for a big government socialist democrat, or you can vote for the imperfect but freedom supporting Republican.
You bitch about not having enough freedom, but if you have a problem with Republican candidates you need to vote your candidates in in the primaries. You vote 3rd party and you prove yourself full of shit.
default013 1 year ago
@bobjman You need to pick a side, criticize them in private (in person and in elections) and SUPPORT THEM IN PUBLIC. Just like any good military leader or boss will tell you to treat employees / subordinates.
Any right wing fool who uses and promotes the term and use of the term neo-con does is doing a disservice to the ideals they say they support. You like denigrating those on the right? Maybe you're on the wrong side of the isle. The capitalists are on the right. Socialists on the left.
default013 1 year ago
@bobjman Health care is America's political 9/11. It is time for the right wing to STAND TOGETHER and to stop this petty bickering! If we don't the damned collectivists will roll over us like a panther tank.
Quit wasting your time tearing down your own side and pick the candidates you like. Go support them! It's easy to sit on the sidelines and bitch. But alot of people don't like taking the criticism for choosing a candidate. It's time to put up or shut up.
default013 1 year ago
@bobjman Let me say one more thing. To you or I, if we are to use the term neo-con, we refer to a very small and select group of moderate Republicans. The mainstream media and the left who have popularized the term, refer to ANYONE on the right wing when they use it and primarily when the term is used THAT is how it is understood. That is what I mean when you do yourself a disservice. The time for infighting is OVER.
default013 1 year ago
@bobjman the Neo-Cons hijacked the GOP and the Progressives hijacked the Democrats. What a great situation...
chaset51 1 year ago
@chaset51
If the Progressives had actually hijacked the Dems, why are the wars still going on? Why is torture and secrecy at its height? The Dems have their own type of neocon war-mongering in the Brzezinski school, with its minions disporportionately in think tanks and universities.
maxime32 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bobjman "Marx was the first to use the term capitalist in the modern sense, but I proudly admit to being a capitalist." Congratulations, you fell for the oldest Marxist trick in the book. America truly has lost the Cold War with its moronic anti-communism.
shamusername 10 months ago
Those who insist on military might are neo-cons.
Those who think neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised are neo-cons.
Many news media outlets have a neo-con agenda.
Are you a neo-con?
Ron Paul says neo-cons are NOT CONSERVATIVES!..and I agree!
Definition and names of neo-cons: /watch?v=nuefjIYKkjE
vechorik 5 months ago
I have heard several people refer to themselves as "neo-conservatives". Though they usually prefer "compassionate conservative".
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Funny, I'm a conservative activist who has met several politicians, activists, pundits and vast amounts of conservatives. I couldn't mention one who calls themselves a neo-con.
default013 1 year ago
I think the title "the Neocon Con" would be better. Sounds like a dance; the devil's dance, don't you think? I smell sulphur---or is that the stinch of tyranny?
billyboy647 2 years ago
Or the idiocy that we need to become "energy independent" (impossible for the US with our current consumption patterns) so we don't keep going into no-win wars in the Middle East. So is that admitting we go to war for oil?? Sounds like it!
But the real solution is to have leaders who won't go to war so quickly and a populace that actually is vigilant against easy war!!
whoo689 2 years ago
You know, that stupid lie that's easily debunked but few people actually question because their leaders are constantly parroting it, just like the lies about Iran getting nukes. Or Ahmadinejad being "the hitler of the middle east", even though he has yet to kill a single human being nor has much REAL power in Iran.
whoo689 2 years ago
When I was looking in the political books section of Borders, or maybe it was Barnes and Noble, I came upon a very silly book called The Neocon Reader. I almost threw up in my mouth and shook my head.
Have you guys heard of Ben Wattenberg? He's a Reagan Dem but a neocon too. Actually has a show on PBS, if I recall.
The weirdest combination though comes in the form of James Woolsey. He's a liberal Democrat but a neocon on foreign policy nonetheless. He promotes "oil funds terrorists".
whoo689 2 years ago
One of the neocons many years back in, I think, The Weekly Standard, actually wrote an article called "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy." Of course, his proposals were anything but "neo-Reaganite." They were NEOCONSERVATIVE. Shame on them for cloaking themselves in such a way.
whoo689 2 years ago
That's it, I need to have your babies.
datavortex 2 years ago
SouthrenAvenger....this is one of your finest!
stjakk 2 years ago 2
Well thought out, and well put. You definitely shed some light on the "conservative" situation in America. I wonder how many born and raised Republicans have a mind open enoug