@MrAbolitionist I agree it is totally possible to be a social conservative and not a neo-conservative, but neo-conservatives are social conservatives in their beliefs about how the state should impose morality.
@sabot96 that's a little broad, for example Rudy Giuliani would probably be considered a neoconservative, as would Joe Lieberman, yet they are not social conservatives, It's probably safer to define neo-conservatism as an ideology in relation to foreign policy rather than in relation to so called "social issues"
@MrAbolitionist neo- conservatism is not just foreign policy. They do try to impose some type of morality on the country as well as the world. I have not thought it through how it interacts with social conservatism. I may just be picking up on Regans and Bushes social conservative leanings and linking them with more pure neo-conservatives.
@sabot96 Well of course, that is why neoconservativism is good though. I became a neocon in part out of a realization as to what would be necessary to achieve my goals as a social conservative.
Beyond Liberal and Conservative there are also "idealists" on both sides of the aisle; as well as realists. Both mindsets hold to "ideals". Neocons are "idealists" because the goals are ultimately "utopian" in nature. Not simply just fighting terrorism, but the idealism of actually ending all terrorism forever. Feeding the poor is an ideal too, but "putting an end to all world hunger" is idealism.
"liberals" are not liberals and "neo-conservatives" are not liberals. thomas jefferson was a liberal. karl marx, irving kristol, and hillary clinton are not.
Maybe you might like this quote from Jefferson "I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country" --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.
love that quote! in fact, it is one of my favorite thomas jefferson quotes. i have made a point to make it the very first quote in the "favorite quotes" section on facebook. "corporations" are fake quasi government market institutions. they are practically extensions of the state. they develop around the money and coercive monopolies, and benefit immensely from the subsisidies, bailouts, inflationary policies, and protectionist policies, that are perpetuated by it.
That is an interesting perspective when in this case he says that corporations are a threat to government and the laws of the country. His problem is not with government or the laws of the government, but with moneyed corporations. It is amazing to me how you can spend countless comments in praise of Standard Oil Co., and now your telling me how bad corporations are. I think your views are a bit conflicted.
do you have any idea what a corporation is? "corporation" is a term defined in law. they are not a product of any free market. the "federal reserve" is a corporation. corporations are necessarily aproduct of government. ALL corporations are sanctioned by the state and in and of themselves are economic interventionism. i never defended the quasi government legal structure of Standard Oil. i was defending rockefeller and his inherent right to pursue as great of an oil market share as he could win.
I am glad you have finally come around. Since Standard oil could not exist without the incorporation laws of the US and they are a product of the government. The government should regulate them. This is the same conclusion that the people of that time came to. I support their decision.
no. the government should not be in the business of creating artificial market extensions of itself. politicians should not regulate them. politicians should get rid of them. srip them of their "legal personality" status, reinstate tort law, and eliminate eligeability for all the other special priviledges fake businesses enjoy. those monsters can not be regulated. they must be destroyed outright.
Liberals who want to spy on Americans, wage wars, and impose their morality on the country?!?!?! I think you have no clue what a tru liberal is. I can't imagine ANYONE saying Bush is just a disillusioned liberal.....WOW
The original neoconservatives were from the ranks of liberals. Regan is one example of this. It is true that they have been transformed into holding ideas that are very much in conflict with the value of personal liberty that true liberals hold. That is why they are now neocons and not liberals anymore.
Democrats want to use force to push their socialist views. Neocons want to use force to push their religo views. And then you got the libertarians, who don't want to push any views... a government with very defined limits.
I think it would be a better if Republicans went back to pushing for smaller government, and Democrats went back to fighting for individual liberty. Then we would have a smaller government that was concerned with individual liberty.
From this video, you seem to think parties can shift. So I don't know if comparing today's libertarians to Democrat-Republicans of 150 years ago is unfair.
Ron Paul has said he wants to restore the "Robert Taft-wing" of the Republican party. That's the linkage. Not to mention that Democrats are big government and Republicans (are supposed to be) small government. Which camp do you think Libertarians would fit in?
I have received comments like this "What we believe to be Republican today is nothing like what orignal republicans were like....Ron Paul is an original Republican". The reality is Ron Paul and Libertarians have more in common with original Democrats. Original Republicans were progressives.
There were two prominent Republicans who sought the nomination who were very similar to Paul. Taft and Goldwater. Neither were "original" Republicans. Taft ended his run in the senate in the '50's, and Goldwater captured the nomination in '64. They say Goldwater led to Reagan, who Ron Paul endorsed.
Goldwater and Reagan are not the fathers of Ron Paul. Goldwater made this statement "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." The aggressive foreign policy of Goldwater and Reagan is nothing like Ron Paul. Reagan is a neoconservative and the political father of George Bush.
I said Goldwater and Taft. Reagan is a different animal. Reagan's presidency certainly wasn't libertarian. Paul was very critical of Reagan's presidency. But he did endorse him in '76 when he was speaking much more like a Libertarian.
Neoconservatism is as variant as any type of political persuasion, inner proclivities prove more powerful than any type of near dogmatic ideology. G. W. Bush is not a poster child for neocons, in fact he isnt the poster child for two thirds of Americans at any length at all. The fact you use wikipedia and only one other source proves you are intellectually lazy. Grow up, you do not have your PhD in Political Science you freak.
So I can't talk about an issue without a PhD? I would have to say that you are as ignorant as your statement. G.W. Bush is a poster child for Neoconservatism. His stands on war, social issues, and spending are right in line with Neoconservatism.
You're saying that because Paul and Goldwater disagreed on one issue that they're nothing alike? That doesn't seem fair. But if you'd like 2 issues where they disagree, Goldwater was also pro-choice, Paul is not.
PS Barry Goldwater, JR. endorsed Ron Paul recently.
I would say foreign policy and Abortion are very big issues when it comes to being a libertarian. I just read a small book that Ron Paul wrote called Mises and Austrian Economics. There is no doubt in my mind that Ron Paul is a Libertarian.
Goldwater would be more libertarian in just about every area but foreign policy. What you're missing is that the libertarian ideal is a principle. Sometimes that ideal can come down on opposite sides of an issue.
The abortion issue is the best example. While the issue is a big deal, the libertarian principle remains the same no matter which side of the debate you fall on. A pro-life libertarian and a pro-choice libertarian have very little differences. One simply believes your rights begin at conception, one doesn't. That's not a political difference.
Goldwater is the "father" of all of them, you're retarded....In failure is where you find the tools to prove victorious. You're a political hack, as is the hairless fagot in this video.
Fuck you you piece of shit. In failure you learn that some of your ideas are garbage. If you are not going to add something valuable here , the ban button was created for shit just like you.
"The Democratic Party evolved from the Anti-federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s when Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized the Democratic-Republican Party. The party's favored states' rights, strict construction of the Constitution, opposition to a national bank, and opposition to moneyed interests. --Wikipedia
I try to stay away from the terms "liberal" and "conservative." I really don't know what a conservative means, it could mean a lot. But "liberal" has completely shifted it's meaning (see "classical liberal"). I'd agree with your assessment that neocons are essentially Democrats.
This video contains an extremely poor description of neoconservatism.
ProtoSteward 9 months ago
social conservatism is not the same as neo-conservatism
MrAbolitionist 1 year ago
@MrAbolitionist I agree it is totally possible to be a social conservative and not a neo-conservative, but neo-conservatives are social conservatives in their beliefs about how the state should impose morality.
sabot96 1 year ago
@sabot96 that's a little broad, for example Rudy Giuliani would probably be considered a neoconservative, as would Joe Lieberman, yet they are not social conservatives, It's probably safer to define neo-conservatism as an ideology in relation to foreign policy rather than in relation to so called "social issues"
MrAbolitionist 1 year ago
@MrAbolitionist neo- conservatism is not just foreign policy. They do try to impose some type of morality on the country as well as the world. I have not thought it through how it interacts with social conservatism. I may just be picking up on Regans and Bushes social conservative leanings and linking them with more pure neo-conservatives.
sabot96 1 year ago
@sabot96 Well of course, that is why neoconservativism is good though. I became a neocon in part out of a realization as to what would be necessary to achieve my goals as a social conservative.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
I would recommend checking out "Dominion Theology" and "Christian Reconstructionism" on wiki.
MeisterDude 3 years ago
Beyond Liberal and Conservative there are also "idealists" on both sides of the aisle; as well as realists. Both mindsets hold to "ideals". Neocons are "idealists" because the goals are ultimately "utopian" in nature. Not simply just fighting terrorism, but the idealism of actually ending all terrorism forever. Feeding the poor is an ideal too, but "putting an end to all world hunger" is idealism.
MeisterDude 3 years ago
"liberals" are not liberals and "neo-conservatives" are not liberals. thomas jefferson was a liberal. karl marx, irving kristol, and hillary clinton are not.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Maybe you might like this quote from Jefferson "I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country" --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.
sabot96 3 years ago
love that quote! in fact, it is one of my favorite thomas jefferson quotes. i have made a point to make it the very first quote in the "favorite quotes" section on facebook. "corporations" are fake quasi government market institutions. they are practically extensions of the state. they develop around the money and coercive monopolies, and benefit immensely from the subsisidies, bailouts, inflationary policies, and protectionist policies, that are perpetuated by it.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
That is an interesting perspective when in this case he says that corporations are a threat to government and the laws of the country. His problem is not with government or the laws of the government, but with moneyed corporations. It is amazing to me how you can spend countless comments in praise of Standard Oil Co., and now your telling me how bad corporations are. I think your views are a bit conflicted.
sabot96 3 years ago
do you have any idea what a corporation is? "corporation" is a term defined in law. they are not a product of any free market. the "federal reserve" is a corporation. corporations are necessarily aproduct of government. ALL corporations are sanctioned by the state and in and of themselves are economic interventionism. i never defended the quasi government legal structure of Standard Oil. i was defending rockefeller and his inherent right to pursue as great of an oil market share as he could win.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
I am glad you have finally come around. Since Standard oil could not exist without the incorporation laws of the US and they are a product of the government. The government should regulate them. This is the same conclusion that the people of that time came to. I support their decision.
sabot96 3 years ago
no. the government should not be in the business of creating artificial market extensions of itself. politicians should not regulate them. politicians should get rid of them. srip them of their "legal personality" status, reinstate tort law, and eliminate eligeability for all the other special priviledges fake businesses enjoy. those monsters can not be regulated. they must be destroyed outright.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
neo conservitism= stupid based on this vid which i believe cuz ive seen it in the bush admin
jblive1985 3 years ago
Liberals who want to spy on Americans, wage wars, and impose their morality on the country?!?!?! I think you have no clue what a tru liberal is. I can't imagine ANYONE saying Bush is just a disillusioned liberal.....WOW
RenaissanceMan929 4 years ago
The original neoconservatives were from the ranks of liberals. Regan is one example of this. It is true that they have been transformed into holding ideas that are very much in conflict with the value of personal liberty that true liberals hold. That is why they are now neocons and not liberals anymore.
sabot96 4 years ago
Democrats want to use force to push their socialist views. Neocons want to use force to push their religo views. And then you got the libertarians, who don't want to push any views... a government with very defined limits.
thephd 4 years ago
I think it would be a better if Republicans went back to pushing for smaller government, and Democrats went back to fighting for individual liberty. Then we would have a smaller government that was concerned with individual liberty.
sabot96 4 years ago
When did Dems fight for individual liberty? I think individual liberty means small government.
thephd 4 years ago
I find it funny that the Libertarians are linked with the Republican party when in reality they are like the first Democrats.
sabot96 4 years ago
From this video, you seem to think parties can shift. So I don't know if comparing today's libertarians to Democrat-Republicans of 150 years ago is unfair.
Ron Paul has said he wants to restore the "Robert Taft-wing" of the Republican party. That's the linkage. Not to mention that Democrats are big government and Republicans (are supposed to be) small government. Which camp do you think Libertarians would fit in?
thephd 4 years ago
umm, i mean "fair."
thephd 4 years ago
I have received comments like this "What we believe to be Republican today is nothing like what orignal republicans were like....Ron Paul is an original Republican". The reality is Ron Paul and Libertarians have more in common with original Democrats. Original Republicans were progressives.
sabot96 4 years ago
What exactly do you mean by "progressives?"
And why do you have to compare Ron Paul or Libertarians to the "original" party members? Sure, Paul is called the Thomas Jefferson of our day...
But in the last century, there weren't any Democrats similar to Ron Paul.
thephd 4 years ago
There were two prominent Republicans who sought the nomination who were very similar to Paul. Taft and Goldwater. Neither were "original" Republicans. Taft ended his run in the senate in the '50's, and Goldwater captured the nomination in '64. They say Goldwater led to Reagan, who Ron Paul endorsed.
thephd 4 years ago
Come on... you never replied.
thephd 4 years ago
Goldwater and Reagan are not the fathers of Ron Paul. Goldwater made this statement "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." The aggressive foreign policy of Goldwater and Reagan is nothing like Ron Paul. Reagan is a neoconservative and the political father of George Bush.
sabot96 4 years ago
I said Goldwater and Taft. Reagan is a different animal. Reagan's presidency certainly wasn't libertarian. Paul was very critical of Reagan's presidency. But he did endorse him in '76 when he was speaking much more like a Libertarian.
thephd 4 years ago
After reading more on Goldwater, it would seem that Goldwater is neoconservative in foreign policy and Libertarian in Social policy.
sabot96 4 years ago
Neoconservatism is as variant as any type of political persuasion, inner proclivities prove more powerful than any type of near dogmatic ideology. G. W. Bush is not a poster child for neocons, in fact he isnt the poster child for two thirds of Americans at any length at all. The fact you use wikipedia and only one other source proves you are intellectually lazy. Grow up, you do not have your PhD in Political Science you freak.
Kyle4202006 4 years ago
So I can't talk about an issue without a PhD? I would have to say that you are as ignorant as your statement. G.W. Bush is a poster child for Neoconservatism. His stands on war, social issues, and spending are right in line with Neoconservatism.
sabot96 4 years ago
You're a monkey. You time is through. You'll be crushed like a bug.
badonkadonk34 3 years ago
You're saying that because Paul and Goldwater disagreed on one issue that they're nothing alike? That doesn't seem fair. But if you'd like 2 issues where they disagree, Goldwater was also pro-choice, Paul is not.
PS Barry Goldwater, JR. endorsed Ron Paul recently.
thephd 4 years ago
I would say foreign policy and Abortion are very big issues when it comes to being a libertarian. I just read a small book that Ron Paul wrote called Mises and Austrian Economics. There is no doubt in my mind that Ron Paul is a Libertarian.
sabot96 4 years ago
Goldwater would be more libertarian in just about every area but foreign policy. What you're missing is that the libertarian ideal is a principle. Sometimes that ideal can come down on opposite sides of an issue.
thephd 4 years ago
The abortion issue is the best example. While the issue is a big deal, the libertarian principle remains the same no matter which side of the debate you fall on. A pro-life libertarian and a pro-choice libertarian have very little differences. One simply believes your rights begin at conception, one doesn't. That's not a political difference.
thephd 4 years ago
Goldwater is the "father" of all of them, you're retarded....In failure is where you find the tools to prove victorious. You're a political hack, as is the hairless fagot in this video.
Kyle4202006 4 years ago
I didn't say "Goldwater is the 'father.' Retard. I said Goldwater led to Reagan. That's a common assumption.
thephd 4 years ago
Fuck you you piece of shit. In failure you learn that some of your ideas are garbage. If you are not going to add something valuable here , the ban button was created for shit just like you.
sabot96 4 years ago
"The Democratic Party evolved from the Anti-federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s when Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized the Democratic-Republican Party. The party's favored states' rights, strict construction of the Constitution, opposition to a national bank, and opposition to moneyed interests. --Wikipedia
sabot96 4 years ago
And Hamilton would have much more in common with the Democratic party today, don't you think?
thephd 4 years ago
Democrats today have become such a mixture of ideas that it is really hard to place them. I really don't think they stand for anything today.
sabot96 4 years ago
I try to stay away from the terms "liberal" and "conservative." I really don't know what a conservative means, it could mean a lot. But "liberal" has completely shifted it's meaning (see "classical liberal"). I'd agree with your assessment that neocons are essentially Democrats.
thephd 4 years ago
Democrats have been taken over by socialists. Republicans have been taken over by Neocons. It is a crazy political world we live in.
sabot96 4 years ago
That was a great history lesson. :-)
lolaknows 4 years ago
It is always interesting to see where things came from and what they have become.
sabot96 4 years ago