I hardly think Pat Buchanan is a true defender of freedom. He's as bad as the neo-cons, as far as I'm concerned. In particular, he's an economic nationalist, believing government should have authority to dictate to business where it does business and how.
"Barley human beast who need to be chained up"Is actually putting it mildly. Neocons are evil invading rabid dogs who need to be shot. Or at least put in uniform, sent over there, and have the Taliban shoot them.
While secularism and communism are two different things, for communists they have historically been closely related. Throughout the Cold War, the Communist Party saw the weakening of traditional sorts of religious influence in American life as essential to the achievement of its domestic goals. The Party's strategy vis-a-vis religion was twofold: one, to promote secularism in the name of church-state separation, and two, to transform religion by making it materialistic and socialistic.
Neoconservatives, in the strict original definition of the term, were leftists (many Jewsish) who became attached to conservatism because they were dismayed by the left's abandonment of (or outright hostility towards) our ally, the democratic republic of Israel. When they saw those on the right standing up for Israel they made common cause with the defenders of the Middle East's only representative democracy. This alliance became the means by which they learned many other conservative principles
@herbs814 The original neocons did not support Israel because it was "the middle east's only representative democracy," but because it was Israel. Contrary to popular belief, the Israeli state isn't the only "representative democracy" in the region. Politically, Israel is a lot like Turkey, to which the neocons have never shown any special attachment. Their support for Israel was motivated by Zionism, and such sympathy continues to be a major element of neoconservative thought.
During the '80s, Reagan bombed Libya, pulled the hell out of Lebanon, and spend only 2-3 months in Grenada, all WITHOUT never-ending occupation, left-wing appeasement, or stupid "pre-emptive" war.
There IS such a thing as being conservative, tough and strong on foreign affairs without being a pansy liberal who bows down and begs to every enemy for peace...
First lets take the liberal out of the republican party and the racisists and get rid of jack hunter, ron paul and pat buchannan who love jihadists and want to see america destroyed and have spent their entire lives hating america and loving all things terrorist.
@TheHomelandDefender 1. Libertarians and Paleoconservatives are not the liberals here... you hack neoconservatives are the liberals. 2. People like Ron Paul, Pat Buchannan and Jack Hunter do not want jihadist and do not like all things terrorist.
Honestly lets see you debate on actual facts rather than Weekly Standard neocon propaganda.
I, as a PAGAN, am telling you, as a communist, that America was not only founded on christian principles, but was, and IS, a christian nation, and will NEVER be a communist state if I have anything to say about it.
now ask "vonhelton" how he manages to be a 9/11 truther yet hold neocon views on foreign policy. i think he's just being a straw man. a failure of a straw man but nonetheless a straw man.
the "right" you're referring to isn't really the right but ex-communists who follow strauss. zionism and communism are heavily intermarried. it's no coincidence that most prominent neocons are pro-israel ex-communists.
traditional american conservatism is about limiting the powers of the federal government, not policing the world or arresting drug users who live in a state that permits it.
I am pro strong military and national defense, but that doesn't mean for a moment that I disagree with what Ron Paul has said about Blowback.
Want to hear a real radio Conservative? Listen to Mike Church. Gay marriage? None of my business. Gays serving openly in the military? Anyone willing to put their blood on the line for this country is an american to respect. He believes in the charity and innovation of individuals, and getting government out of business = prosperity; a devout Austrian.
The false left-right paradigm is nothing more than tag-team dictatorship.
Professional wrestling or good cop/bad cop. The entire process is a staged event that is controlled by the global elite that own BOTH parties at the national level.
America will never be able to recover until these two treasonous and criminal parties are exposed and dealt with.
Collectivism, is the hidden agenda that controls both parties NOT a Constitutional Republic based on Individualism and liberty.
James Cannon, Iriving Kristol, Leo Strauss, all founders of the modern neoconservative movement, every single one dyed in the wool Trotsky supporters. The entire neocon cabal is a group of big government, big money traitors, and their actions in the past 8 years have shown them for who they are.
There is no viable right wing anymore. There's a socialist left in power, and a socialist right that acts as the anvil to the hammer, and so long as this paradigm exists, nothing in America will change.
"Was" is the key word. Though forgive me, but he was never for the bailout. The war? Yes.
The question here is, can some one change? Beck supported Paul (very lightly and very cautiously, as he was pro-war at the time) then later abandoned his pro-war rhetoric. The question would be, should we believe this change is sincere or should we remain distrustful of his motives? I can see an argument for both.
Beck called Ron Paul supporters violent revolutionist and said they should be arrested back in '08. Obviously he tries to embrace the tea party crowd now so he will say things like he agrees with Paul. He is still saying 9/11 truthers are potential domesticated terrorists and has CIA analysts on his show repeating this message. CIA is not suppose to operate domestically! Beck is a chameleon - we now FOX news is a propaganda channel with an agenda and beck is part of it.
Beck is still a liar. Remember when stated how he couldn't disprove FEMA camps existed. The next week he spends the whole week using scarecrow argument tactics "debunking" their existence. He is also FOR the patriot act.
Watch on youtube: "Glenn Beck is a Neocon (Not a Libertarian)"
On the topic of an aggressive foreign policy . . .
Is there really a difference between the Bush Doctrine and guilty until proven innocent? In this context, it is obvious how un-American preemptive war really is.
President Obama still wants to attack Iran and he's bombed Pakistan. With the likes of David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Dennis Ross, and Hillary Clinton pushing him to do so is a continuation of the neocon policy.
They unconditionally support Israel with an alliance with the Likud Party.
Regardless of what you think of Beck, he's hitting the mark on just about every single topic. Some say he doesn't go far enough, but there will ALWAYS be arm chair critics that sit back and run someone down who is doing far more than they are.
But we are a people who like to sit in our chairs and talk about why everyone else is wrong.
As far as being an armchair critic, I passed out fliers for Paul, constantly argue with people that give me headaches to try and maybe educate a select few, donated upwards of a thousand dollars, and went to a Republican convention when I worked nights and had a bunch of people who hate me on general principle intentionally extend it just to try to wear the Paulites down. But even if I hadn't done all that, I'd still have the right to critique. =)
It's great! It actually criticizes the fear-mongering done by the global warming crowd, too. What do the Republicans and Democrats have in common? Fear-mongering.
Neo Cons ARE Trotskyite communists. See: Bill Kristol and his father Irving. Also - the 10 planks of the Communists Manifesto. They are startlingly similar to the "progressive", Neo-conservative ideology.
I think there is a conference here in Charleston to discuss the ideas of nullification and interposition, pretty soon I think. I am not sure who is going to be there....
Also interesting is Sheriff Al Cannon here spoke at a recent regional meeting of the Oath Keepers. If you guys don't what the Oath Keepers are you should look them up. I'm not sure how big the meeting was but it is interesting nonetheless.
Republican-ideologue's are so incredibly obnoxious and stupid. I'd equate them to NDP-ideologue's here in Canada. Bunch of fucking morons that actually make you think that Democracy is a bad idea.
Pure Democracy is a bad idea. That's why America is a Republic. To give you an idea of just how bad a pure democracy is, our founders made sure that not one single time does the word Democracy appear in the US constitution and nor does it appear in any state constitution.
Not one single time. That is by design and no accident.
That's also why Jefferson and Madison came up with the principles of '98 because they knew the government could not check itself. Of course, this was tested and Lincoln murdered hundreds of thousands of people as a result. Democracy kind of is a bad idea. I mean, look at who got elected? A robot for the establishment in human skin.
Deltaego: Pure democracy like communism, is an idea that has its merits on paper, but is a train wreck in practice.
A pure democracy on the scale of the US would be a perpetual clusterfuck. It's hard enough to get a small group of people to decide on pizza toppings. Multiply that by like 50 million, for an understanding of what it would be like.
The Representative republic we know really is an ingenious sort of beast. And it's the best in the world. Time to eject the two-party circle-jerkers.
The Rabid Radicals of Corporate Monopoly Collectivism who 'struggle' against the principles in the constitution should be correctly labeled as NonCons.
When I read "corporate monopoly collectivism"; the term that comes to my mind is Fascism. Corporatism and imperialism were the defining principles of Mussolini's Italy or as he called it "the corporate state".
The fact is that for most of the 20th and all of the 21st century this country has been creeping ever closer to becoming a fascist dictatorship is the final stages of completing that process.
Of all the slanderous definitions towards libertarians, Confederates is probably the least offensive one and is actually accurate.
There is a reason the original constitution was called the Articles of CONfederation. There's a difference between a federation, and a confederation. A federation is when the member states are part of the one big state. A confederacy is when they participate of their own volion.
Yes, but the word confederacy has been tainted in main stream thought by the notion of slavery being preserved.
We all know what he meant by neo-confederate, and it wasn't people who believe in state's rights. Just like we know when Jack says "liberal" and "left" he means big government and when he says "conservative" and "right" he means small government. Which makes George Bush far left, Ralph Nader a centrist, and Mikhail Bakunin far right.
If the right is considered less government, anarchists are the epitome. Granted, there would be anarchists further right than him. I never understood exactly how 'anarcho-socialism' and 'anarcho-capitalism' work with in their contexts outside of people voluntarily taking part in their respective systems.
I could be said Bakunin was not a true anarchist. His views on colonialism support that. Though he was clearly very distrustful of government, to the point of being a hair up Marx's ass.
That's the standard thing some one implies when they say right wing. But a growing definition of what it means to be right wing, is less government.
The problem with 'preserve a traditional order' is what order are you trying to preserve? The traditions of China is different than the traditions of Canada. The order of America in the 1790s is different than the order in the 1950s. Under that definition, what is and is not right wing varies very widely. Though I'd agree that defines conservative.
Well, then we live in a world where words no longer matter, and how words are used today distort how we view things that happened yesterday.
The people have too soon forgotten that the ones opposed to the civil rights movement called themselves conservatives. They were preserving the traditional order. They were preserving what the majority of the people wanted (segregation) so they had democratic justification for injustice. They opposed big government telling them to treat blacks equally.
A conservative is someone who TENDS to scrutinize proposed changes aiming to make sure we only change as much as is reasonable and only accept helpful and necessary new elements
...because individuals are the best ones to trust when it comes to the management of their own lives for fear that Pareto efficient assistance breed a sense of entitlement to relieve ones self of personal responsibility.
Neo-cons are recovering Trotskyites. While as a leftist progressive myself generally respect libertarians (and actual paleoconservatives in some cases), I am a bit hesitant to view most Tea Party types as libertarians and/or paleoconservatives. Maybe I need to search deeper, but many of them seem to think that tax & spending all started with Obama. While not a fan of Obama myself, it seems like many Tea Party activists weren't so upset when the GOP were in power doing the taxing & spending.
The tea partiers are split down the middle. I have trouble identifying with one half, the McCain supporting hypocritical Palinites who jumped on the band wagon... but the tea parties have their roots in the Ron Paul movement who hate Bush as much if not more than Obama (crazy for a bunch of racists, I know). So I am part of the other half.
For a while I was worried the "neo-cons are going to hijack our movement", I believe is exactly what I said when the tea parties started. They haven't. =)
The neo-cons are probably afraid of populist power. After all, it was a wave of populist sentiment that ushered the in the presidency of Andrew Jackson who abolished the Bank of the United States, a predecessor to the modern Federal Reserve bank.
And it was populist sentiment from the credit expansion of the central bank driving asset bubbles, similar to now. Except now, the harvard trained game theory mathamaticians and technocrats are much smarter and are doing a much better job by creating full employment (as if we couldn't do that on our own) and protecting the middle class, the backbone of the country. They are oh so selfless. Thank the stars we have such wise, enlightened masters.
Yeah, I've been working on a series of videos about the stupid so-called Cash for Clunkers policy (which was originally endorsed by Bush I during his presidency, actually). Anyway, I came across an article that was talking about Cash for Clunkers, and one reason they are doing it is because cars are actually lasting LONGER. What a shame! I mean, if the market were allowed to act, there'd be incentive to move into other industries, and let the car ind. be smaller, yet still fulfilling needs.
Have you read Rothbard's History of Money and Banking in the US from the Colonial Period to World War 2 yet? I am still getting through it. Fiercely dry and academic - I am really enjoying it.
Tea Party types are not concerned with Obama because he is black; they are critical of him due to what they perceive as ideological differences. Don't get me wrong; I disagree with the Tea Party movement. In fact, I consider myself a socialist. Do I, however, see race involved with opposing Obama from the right? Not really. I can relate as a leftist that is too the left of Obama. There is good reason to oppose him. I hope his healthcare plan does not go through because it corporate welfare.
Obama represents why I don't support socialism. Because government is ultimately self serving and public servants will always use the power gifted them to meet their own ends, and to help their rich friends. So long as you dress it up as something else, both Obama and Bush have done this, most people will be too busy fighting over the details to notice just how corrupt the system is.
If people were more vigilant of their government and more critical of it I wouldn't be as up in arms.
Yea, he's dead dude, the illuminati contacted the Rothschilds and together they hired a hit man to pour hot crab oil on him. Again, I'm not sure if you are correct, and I think you are jumping to a conclusion that seems based on some shaky research and assumptions. No offense.
make no mistake, the united states is not in the least concerned with spreading democracy. rather, they are more concerned with controlling the resources of the world and indebting other countries to the world bank by using their military as enforcers. all of this right vs. left, spreading democracy talk is distraction for the real powers to operate in the open by confusing people as to the nature of what it is they are actually doing.
Well said!I agree with what you are saying to a point. However, I disagree with those who would say that we went to war for oil, or rather, we went to war because we consume so much oil. That's not why we went to war. Other countries are more than happy to sell us oil. They do it all of the time without war. It seems the wars rather are to support socialistically the Military-Industrial Complex. Control of resources is simply a very welcome bonus, enriching a few, well-connected people.
True, the arms manufacturers benefit from prolonged killing. Not only are we living the dream of the Progressive movement from the 20's and 30's domestically, we are also living the dream of the monetary imperialists from the turn of the century, when the economic inteligensia saw an opportunity to influence human action through government and to spread the power of the banking cartel (that we all serve) by enticing other countries to use the money that our masters supplied to them. I digress.
Your a little off this week, Jack. Progressives of 1912 may have been about spreading democracy, but these days they are the ones on the left trying to bring our troops home. The rank and file of the Republican party seems to still be for continued spreading of democracy.
It seemed like to me that the progressives were trying to bring the troops home until Obama took office. I'm sure that some committed lefty types still are fighting for this, fighting against the Democratic Party on this issue. But so often it seems that opposition just melts away when "your" party gets into office. (I don't mean yours per se, but when people view that their own party is in power, they shut up. Thus politics just becomes a football game.).
I voted for Ralph Nader in 2008 because I viewed Barack Obama as just another "Democratic Party corporate centrist" which are every bit as bad as the "neo-cons" in the Republican Party. Both centrist Dems and neo-con Republicans only adhere to corporate special interests. They are both willing to allow China to financially take over us. I think that leftists in the Democratic Party and paleocons/libertarians in the Republican Party should both leave their parties and formed their own parties.
Just to add more to this discussion, I really do not think that all the horrible situation in the United States today can be summed simply into the old "left vs. right" paradigm. It is looking more like a "left/right" versus another group of "left-right" in today's political climate.
Psychopunk you hit the nail on the head dude. Right after the Obama had his little debate at the republican Caucus a bunch of LIberals started rallying the cry for the same situation. And I can tell you they didn't want it for praise they wanted it for hardcore criticism.
Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney vs Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul?
It can't even be summed up with four groups. There are so many differing agendas... I guess it all boils down to what is most important to a person. I was 'moderate' in concern to Iraq, and heavy pro-war in concern to Afghanistan and Pakistan in late 2007. Ron Paul spoke to my soul on fiscal issues and civil liberties which I considered more important, so I supported him anyway. I was eventually converted, but you get the idea.
Honestly, I wasn't able to vote for a third party in my state due to my state's ridiculous ballot access laws. Despite being considered a conservative libertarian given the four major third party contenders, Nader, McKinney, Baldwin, and Barr, I would have voted Nader.
I think that the Nader types and the Buchanan types and the Perot and Paul types should come together to fight the mainstream. But we all recall how it went when Buchanan went reform in 2000. We squabble over petty non-issues.
Before, I might have criticized you for possibly letting someone like McCain win. I would've said something like, "McCain will be Bush's third term!" But you know, history has proven me and you right because Obama got in, and he was Bush's third term. They are both war-monger parties. Nader was right all along.
About China, the reason for that is that we don't have any savings in this country. Chinese people save. But really the problem is the Fed, not China.
Not that I disagree that Neo-cons aren't what amounts to 'war liberals', Wilson came from an era when Republicans were considered progressive and Democrats were considered conservative. Grover Clevland was one of the most libertarian/conservative presidents we've ever had, and he was the last democrat in office prior to Wilson. Wilson also ran on a ticket of non-intervention in 1912. I know, given what he did in Mexico then WWI that's hilarious. And oh look, history is repeating itself.
@droogie76 the cfr was founded by fabian socialists was goal all along was world socialism and the end of american soverignty. seeing how cheney was once president it's very laughable to consider him conservative in any way shape or form.
If I'm not mistaken they set the major foreign policy objectives for this county. I'm sure you have you seen the cspan clip a few months ago of Hillary proclaiming "to get her marching orders from the CFR."
I sometimes wonder if they screw up all of these terms so people can't learn about the history of ideas and then everything is stuck in this sort of rootless modern Newsweek/Time/MSNBC/FoxNews world.
Honestly, words like liberal and conservative hold little meaning to me anymore. I know what Jack means when he says liberal and conservative. I know what Hannity means when he says liberal and conservative. The point being the words hold dramatically different meanings to different people.
For instance, there are people that believe Libertarian = Objectivist. I disagree.
No conservative (no TRUE conservative, anyway) would've allowed you to throw away your national sovereignty, nor would they stand idly by while Europe became a Muslim enclave.
Experts estimate that Europe will be an Islamic Caliphate by 2035 if things continue as they are now.
you're a silly zionist neocon aren't you? go back to licking netanyahu's tiny cock. this is america damn it, not israhell number 2. I WANT MY CONSTITUTION BACK.
i didn't say i wanted to kill jews. supporting/defending any country besides america is traitorious and highly unconstitutional.
don't compare me to hitler because i'm a constitutionalist, that's comparing the founders to hitler and that is not a smart thing to say to us. now go back to worshiping obama, or palin, which ever side of the same coin you prefer.
i don't support anyone but america. quit accusing me of being an "enemy figure" just because i take the constitutional approach which is to not support anyone including israhell.
the constitution forbids defending any (including israhell) country besides america as it's traitorious.
Correct. Yassir Arafat made it abundantly clear that you CANNOT call yourself a "palestinian" unless you want to kill all Jews & push Israel into the sea.
I'll admit that I wasn't as familiar with the issues concerning the matters of Israel and the Mideast in the past, but as I started to listen to Pastor John Hagee, and Coral Ridge Ministries, it's been made a whole lot clearer in understanding the Nation of Israel, and it's significance.
@Tsuruta1 John Hagee said Jesus Christ did not come to be the Messiah of the Jews. That is a direct quote. You can find it here on YouTube. Don't listen to all of these Christian Zionist preachers. They're snakes.
For that matter, don't listen to VonHelton, he's ignorant. Read my comments to him.
@SupositoryRepository If you want me to hear that quote, send me that clip, and I will examine for myself what Pastor Hagee says. If he's in error I'll find out. But no "pastor bashing" if you wish to reply to me, as indicated on my disclaimer. But no matter who says what, it has always been the sworn objective of the extreme Islamofascists to kill the the people of Israel and take their land believeing it's their land and not the Jews.
Have you read any Israeli newspapers recently? Jewish rabbis, who hold official position in the IDF tell soldiers it is their duty to slaughter all non-Jewish men women and children because it is THEIR land.
The clip I speak of always gets deleted. Just search "John Hagee Messiah." Currently it's at the top of the search results.
@SupositoryRepository No you send me the clip, you said it's on here so you send it. And no I have not read any Israeli newspapers. And I don't deny that it's possible to have some zealots today in Israel just as it was during the time when they were ruled by the Roman Empire during Biblical times, but that changes nothing. As it says in the Bible, Israel belongs to the Semitic people of Israel, not Palestinians.
do you know what the pro-constitution position is on this subject? NONE OF OUR DAMN BUSINESS. LET THEM BLOW EACH OTHER UP. FUCK THEM. ALL OF THEM. AMERICA ONLY. AMERICA FIRST. NO ONE SECOND.
I hardly think Pat Buchanan is a true defender of freedom. He's as bad as the neo-cons, as far as I'm concerned. In particular, he's an economic nationalist, believing government should have authority to dictate to business where it does business and how.
rickv404 1 year ago
"Barley human beast who need to be chained up"Is actually putting it mildly. Neocons are evil invading rabid dogs who need to be shot. Or at least put in uniform, sent over there, and have the Taliban shoot them.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
Are White children just expendable assets to be sacrificed on the altar of multi-racialism?
dungeoncrawler55 1 year ago
While secularism and communism are two different things, for communists they have historically been closely related. Throughout the Cold War, the Communist Party saw the weakening of traditional sorts of religious influence in American life as essential to the achievement of its domestic goals. The Party's strategy vis-a-vis religion was twofold: one, to promote secularism in the name of church-state separation, and two, to transform religion by making it materialistic and socialistic.
evergreenpotato 1 year ago 2
Neoconservatives, in the strict original definition of the term, were leftists (many Jewsish) who became attached to conservatism because they were dismayed by the left's abandonment of (or outright hostility towards) our ally, the democratic republic of Israel. When they saw those on the right standing up for Israel they made common cause with the defenders of the Middle East's only representative democracy. This alliance became the means by which they learned many other conservative principles
herbs814 1 year ago
@herbs814 The original neocons did not support Israel because it was "the middle east's only representative democracy," but because it was Israel. Contrary to popular belief, the Israeli state isn't the only "representative democracy" in the region. Politically, Israel is a lot like Turkey, to which the neocons have never shown any special attachment. Their support for Israel was motivated by Zionism, and such sympathy continues to be a major element of neoconservative thought.
evergreenpotato 1 year ago
During the '80s, Reagan bombed Libya, pulled the hell out of Lebanon, and spend only 2-3 months in Grenada, all WITHOUT never-ending occupation, left-wing appeasement, or stupid "pre-emptive" war.
There IS such a thing as being conservative, tough and strong on foreign affairs without being a pansy liberal who bows down and begs to every enemy for peace...
Mokugami 1 year ago
First lets take the liberal out of the republican party and the racisists and get rid of jack hunter, ron paul and pat buchannan who love jihadists and want to see america destroyed and have spent their entire lives hating america and loving all things terrorist.
TheHomelandDefender 1 year ago
@TheHomelandDefender idiot
huskerbird1 1 year ago
@TheHomelandDefender 1. Libertarians and Paleoconservatives are not the liberals here... you hack neoconservatives are the liberals. 2. People like Ron Paul, Pat Buchannan and Jack Hunter do not want jihadist and do not like all things terrorist.
Honestly lets see you debate on actual facts rather than Weekly Standard neocon propaganda.
bittergunowner12 1 year ago
@gravitation770
Secularism & progressiveness *ARE* communist ideologies.
......Unless you think the Bolsheviks were good christian boys.
VonHelton 2 years ago
@gravitation770
I, as a PAGAN, am telling you, as a communist, that America was not only founded on christian principles, but was, and IS, a christian nation, and will NEVER be a communist state if I have anything to say about it.
Why, you ask?
BECAUSE I'M A COLD WAR VET.
VonHelton 2 years ago
oh and apology accepted...
SushiHead20 2 years ago
@gravitation770
Look, if you hate the fact that America was founded on christian principles, you're free to go hang with Kim Jung Ill..
VonHelton 2 years ago
gravitation770,
now ask "vonhelton" how he manages to be a 9/11 truther yet hold neocon views on foreign policy. i think he's just being a straw man. a failure of a straw man but nonetheless a straw man.
SushiHead20 2 years ago 2
gravitation770,
glenn beck is a benedict arnold and rush limbaugh has been a traitor since day one.
read my page if you want to know what traditional right-wing federalism is.
SushiHead20 2 years ago
@gravitation770
"Separation of Church & State" comes from the Communist Manifesto, not the Constitution of the United States.
No amount of blowhard rhetoric from you will change that. Your attempts to turn America into a "Worker's Paradise" have failed.
Go back to "Uncle Fidel" where you belong, commie!
VonHelton 2 years ago
gravitation770,
again those are neocons, not true conservatives.
true conservatives are people like andrew napolitano, thomas jefferson, thomas paine, murray rothbard and ron paul.
true conservatives believe in federalism and only worry about america.
SushiHead20 2 years ago
@gravitation770
Separation of Church & State comes from 2 sources.......The Communist Manifesto & a *LETTER* Thomas Jefferson wrote.
The letter Jefferson wrote did *NOT* advocate, but was a warning.
Also, Jefferson's letter is not a founding document.
Therefore, I must assume you are a communist, since that's where separation of church & state comes from.
VonHelton 2 years ago
gravitation770,
the "right" you're referring to isn't really the right but ex-communists who follow strauss. zionism and communism are heavily intermarried. it's no coincidence that most prominent neocons are pro-israel ex-communists.
traditional american conservatism is about limiting the powers of the federal government, not policing the world or arresting drug users who live in a state that permits it.
SushiHead20 2 years ago
gravitation770,
nope not apathetic, just an old school right-winger.
it was the liberal woodrow wilson who wanted to "democratize" the world like you do.
SushiHead20 2 years ago
gravitation770,
i'm only repeating what the founding fathers said.
DO NOT insult our founding fathers.
SushiHead20 2 years ago
I am pro strong military and national defense, but that doesn't mean for a moment that I disagree with what Ron Paul has said about Blowback.
Want to hear a real radio Conservative? Listen to Mike Church. Gay marriage? None of my business. Gays serving openly in the military? Anyone willing to put their blood on the line for this country is an american to respect. He believes in the charity and innovation of individuals, and getting government out of business = prosperity; a devout Austrian.
thtrgremlin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
recruitJackHunter dotttt Commm
LibertyPulse 2 years ago
"Neoconfederates?" "Racist?" "Bigots?"
How is Ron Paul a bigot? Come on!
doobie4416 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The point about the double standards regarding ideological vilification towards the end is just outstanding
Another manifestation of a classic liberal trait in neo-conservatism BTW,
Playing the victim while trying to create real victims
Great stuff SA
unmarkedX 2 years ago
Comment removed
unmarkedX 2 years ago
Southern Avenger, you know what the F is going on man. Well said. I'm glad I saw you on For Liberty... keep it up!
lotekjunky 2 years ago 2
Well said SA.
AlexTrebucq 2 years ago
Support Ron Paul for President 2012. Pledge your support at draftronpaul . com
ihearttubing 2 years ago 2
@ihearttubing
Not sure putting a high level Mason in the WH is any better than Obama.
VonHelton 2 years ago
I think since he'll be 2 old, how about Gary Johnson former NM governor?
Deleanredtiger 2 years ago
The false left-right paradigm is nothing more than tag-team dictatorship.
Professional wrestling or good cop/bad cop. The entire process is a staged event that is controlled by the global elite that own BOTH parties at the national level.
America will never be able to recover until these two treasonous and criminal parties are exposed and dealt with.
Collectivism, is the hidden agenda that controls both parties NOT a Constitutional Republic based on Individualism and liberty.
diamondman007 2 years ago
@diamondman007
Anyone that's been there longer than 4 years, VOTE THEM OUT.
Otherwise, the NWO will still be in control.
VonHelton 2 years ago
Divide and Conquer
RCinPAWA 2 years ago
Nice
SaveOurSovereignty3 2 years ago
James Cannon, Iriving Kristol, Leo Strauss, all founders of the modern neoconservative movement, every single one dyed in the wool Trotsky supporters. The entire neocon cabal is a group of big government, big money traitors, and their actions in the past 8 years have shown them for who they are.
There is no viable right wing anymore. There's a socialist left in power, and a socialist right that acts as the anvil to the hammer, and so long as this paradigm exists, nothing in America will change.
captainfreedom78 2 years ago 6
I love the conclusion to your column Jack. To the point!
shiftstart 2 years ago 2
Beck was for the BAILOUT and the IRAQ War. Ron Paul is a conservative. Beck and Hannity are both neo-cons.
truthiskey911 2 years ago
"Was" is the key word. Though forgive me, but he was never for the bailout. The war? Yes.
The question here is, can some one change? Beck supported Paul (very lightly and very cautiously, as he was pro-war at the time) then later abandoned his pro-war rhetoric. The question would be, should we believe this change is sincere or should we remain distrustful of his motives? I can see an argument for both.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Comment removed
truthiskey911 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Beck called Ron Paul supporters violent revolutionist and said they should be arrested back in '08. Obviously he tries to embrace the tea party crowd now so he will say things like he agrees with Paul. He is still saying 9/11 truthers are potential domesticated terrorists and has CIA analysts on his show repeating this message. CIA is not suppose to operate domestically! Beck is a chameleon - we now FOX news is a propaganda channel with an agenda and beck is part of it.
truthiskey911 2 years ago
Beck had the courage to admit he was wrong.
On the bail out he changed his mind 4 days later when he realized what they were doing.
conspiracy777 2 years ago
Beck is still a liar. Remember when stated how he couldn't disprove FEMA camps existed. The next week he spends the whole week using scarecrow argument tactics "debunking" their existence. He is also FOR the patriot act.
Watch on youtube: "Glenn Beck is a Neocon (Not a Libertarian)"
truthiskey911 2 years ago
One of your best videos ever!
Some of us have been pointing out the fact that Communists began calling themselves "Neocons" and all it has been is a New Con by Marxists!
Now the rest of our People are beginning to catch up to us.
Live414 2 years ago
Once again, I don't see it. All the Tea Partiers that I see are neo-conned sheep who just jumped on the bandwagon.
RouletteRog 2 years ago 2
Some of them are, yes.
n66178 2 years ago
the Lindsey GrahamNESTYs, the Juan McCains
33ItHappens 2 years ago 2
Neo should take the blue pill for a change.
foiz5000 2 years ago
You do a great job, SA.
TulliusVII 2 years ago 3
On the topic of an aggressive foreign policy . . .
Is there really a difference between the Bush Doctrine and guilty until proven innocent? In this context, it is obvious how un-American preemptive war really is.
OurBraveNewWorld 2 years ago 6
the task for these neocons is making money off the backs of the people and countries they invade
lezlitaz 2 years ago
President Obama still wants to attack Iran and he's bombed Pakistan. With the likes of David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Dennis Ross, and Hillary Clinton pushing him to do so is a continuation of the neocon policy.
They unconditionally support Israel with an alliance with the Likud Party.
NYJared04 2 years ago 2
Regardless of what you think of Beck, he's hitting the mark on just about every single topic. Some say he doesn't go far enough, but there will ALWAYS be arm chair critics that sit back and run someone down who is doing far more than they are.
But we are a people who like to sit in our chairs and talk about why everyone else is wrong.
Some might call that self righteousness.
I just call it lazy.
conspiracy777 2 years ago
That doesn't exclude Beck from criticism.
As far as being an armchair critic, I passed out fliers for Paul, constantly argue with people that give me headaches to try and maybe educate a select few, donated upwards of a thousand dollars, and went to a Republican convention when I worked nights and had a bunch of people who hate me on general principle intentionally extend it just to try to wear the Paulites down. But even if I hadn't done all that, I'd still have the right to critique. =)
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
I never said he's above reproach. Beck never says he's above reproach either.
I worked about the same amount on the Paul campaign. We're on the same team.
Regardless of party, all politicians and all pundits are in line for critique.
Even my comments are up for grabs.
So you can critique my critique about your critique .... it's what makes this county great! :)
conspiracy777 2 years ago
Check out this 3 part BBC series about NeoCons!
"The Power of Nightmares"
This is a MUST view...
bdoebdoe 2 years ago
It's great! It actually criticizes the fear-mongering done by the global warming crowd, too. What do the Republicans and Democrats have in common? Fear-mongering.
jmelkis 2 years ago 2
Read Makaveli, the PNAC papers, or any of Irving Kristol works to find out what a NeoCon is. Or just tune in to FOX news Sunday...
bdoebdoe 2 years ago
Spot on commentary by the Southern Avenger. The Neo Cons are every bit as much a bunch of traitors as the socialists of the left.
BradNC11175 2 years ago
Neo Cons ARE Trotskyite communists. See: Bill Kristol and his father Irving. Also - the 10 planks of the Communists Manifesto. They are startlingly similar to the "progressive", Neo-conservative ideology.
AntiFed1791 2 years ago 2
I think there is a conference here in Charleston to discuss the ideas of nullification and interposition, pretty soon I think. I am not sure who is going to be there....
Also interesting is Sheriff Al Cannon here spoke at a recent regional meeting of the Oath Keepers. If you guys don't what the Oath Keepers are you should look them up. I'm not sure how big the meeting was but it is interesting nonetheless.
n66178 2 years ago
n66178: The Oath Keepers are the finest group of true Patriots in America.
BradNC11175 2 years ago
Republican-ideologue's are so incredibly obnoxious and stupid. I'd equate them to NDP-ideologue's here in Canada. Bunch of fucking morons that actually make you think that Democracy is a bad idea.
Deltaego 2 years ago
@Deltaego
Pure Democracy is a bad idea. That's why America is a Republic. To give you an idea of just how bad a pure democracy is, our founders made sure that not one single time does the word Democracy appear in the US constitution and nor does it appear in any state constitution.
Not one single time. That is by design and no accident.
kmg501 2 years ago 7
That's also why Jefferson and Madison came up with the principles of '98 because they knew the government could not check itself. Of course, this was tested and Lincoln murdered hundreds of thousands of people as a result. Democracy kind of is a bad idea. I mean, look at who got elected? A robot for the establishment in human skin.
n66178 2 years ago 6
@n66178
Thank you for that, you prompted me to do further historical research re those principles.
kmg501 2 years ago
Democracy is a bad idea.
Being ruled by others, whether one, or a few, or many, is being ruled by others.
Autonomy ftw.
barccy 2 years ago 2
Deltaego: Pure democracy like communism, is an idea that has its merits on paper, but is a train wreck in practice.
A pure democracy on the scale of the US would be a perpetual clusterfuck. It's hard enough to get a small group of people to decide on pizza toppings. Multiply that by like 50 million, for an understanding of what it would be like.
The Representative republic we know really is an ingenious sort of beast. And it's the best in the world. Time to eject the two-party circle-jerkers.
nominalvelocity 2 years ago 2
Shalom, baby!
roberteckerson 2 years ago
As one who is mostly liberal, I'd vote for an honest conservative (like the SA) over a fake liberal easily.
And he's right.....neocons have hijacked the conservative movement.
Trollmaster21 2 years ago 4
@Trollmaster21
problem is, R's didnt mind, so long as their side 'got elected'.
i reject my party continually.
MrClaydough 2 years ago
The Rabid Radicals of Corporate Monopoly Collectivism who 'struggle' against the principles in the constitution should be correctly labeled as NonCons.
TOWIFELGA 2 years ago 2
When I read "corporate monopoly collectivism"; the term that comes to my mind is Fascism. Corporatism and imperialism were the defining principles of Mussolini's Italy or as he called it "the corporate state".
The fact is that for most of the 20th and all of the 21st century this country has been creeping ever closer to becoming a fascist dictatorship is the final stages of completing that process.
ArcticSlicer 2 years ago 2
Exactly.
n66178 2 years ago 2
Of all the slanderous definitions towards libertarians, Confederates is probably the least offensive one and is actually accurate.
There is a reason the original constitution was called the Articles of CONfederation. There's a difference between a federation, and a confederation. A federation is when the member states are part of the one big state. A confederacy is when they participate of their own volion.
Confederacy is by choice, federation is by force.
fairlylargejohn 2 years ago 3
Yes, but the word confederacy has been tainted in main stream thought by the notion of slavery being preserved.
We all know what he meant by neo-confederate, and it wasn't people who believe in state's rights. Just like we know when Jack says "liberal" and "left" he means big government and when he says "conservative" and "right" he means small government. Which makes George Bush far left, Ralph Nader a centrist, and Mikhail Bakunin far right.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Oh, actually, I hadn't thought of that. I guess I was naive to think that he actually meant confederate in a good sense lol...
fairlylargejohn 2 years ago
When Mikhail Bakunin, an anarchist collectivist, is defined as "far-right", then your definitions are f'ed up.
Neitzluber 2 years ago
If the right is considered less government, anarchists are the epitome. Granted, there would be anarchists further right than him. I never understood exactly how 'anarcho-socialism' and 'anarcho-capitalism' work with in their contexts outside of people voluntarily taking part in their respective systems.
I could be said Bakunin was not a true anarchist. His views on colonialism support that. Though he was clearly very distrustful of government, to the point of being a hair up Marx's ass.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Right-wing has nothing to do with less government. It is about preserving the traditional order.
Neitzluber 2 years ago
That's the standard thing some one implies when they say right wing. But a growing definition of what it means to be right wing, is less government.
The problem with 'preserve a traditional order' is what order are you trying to preserve? The traditions of China is different than the traditions of Canada. The order of America in the 1790s is different than the order in the 1950s. Under that definition, what is and is not right wing varies very widely. Though I'd agree that defines conservative.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Well, then we live in a world where words no longer matter, and how words are used today distort how we view things that happened yesterday.
The people have too soon forgotten that the ones opposed to the civil rights movement called themselves conservatives. They were preserving the traditional order. They were preserving what the majority of the people wanted (segregation) so they had democratic justification for injustice. They opposed big government telling them to treat blacks equally.
Neitzluber 2 years ago
1
well that is a problem only if you subscribe to globalist ideals
real conservatives do not
so the locality of tradition is not a problem
unmarkedX 2 years ago
2 on the 1790s vs 1950s point
My opinion is one can not think in absolutes
If you think in absolutes not only a conservative is hard to define, but a liberal is as well
In absolute terms a conservative is what? Someone who objects to every single change (like electricity, running water?)
a liberal is what? someone who embraces every single proposed change? Legalization of paedophilia? Alcohol for minors?
unmarkedX 2 years ago
A conservative is someone who TENDS to scrutinize proposed changes aiming to make sure we only change as much as is reasonable and only accept helpful and necessary new elements
unmarkedX 2 years ago
...because individuals are the best ones to trust when it comes to the management of their own lives for fear that Pareto efficient assistance breed a sense of entitlement to relieve ones self of personal responsibility.
thtrgremlin 2 years ago
Neo-cons are recovering Trotskyites. While as a leftist progressive myself generally respect libertarians (and actual paleoconservatives in some cases), I am a bit hesitant to view most Tea Party types as libertarians and/or paleoconservatives. Maybe I need to search deeper, but many of them seem to think that tax & spending all started with Obama. While not a fan of Obama myself, it seems like many Tea Party activists weren't so upset when the GOP were in power doing the taxing & spending.
PsychoPunk1965 2 years ago
The tea partiers are split down the middle. I have trouble identifying with one half, the McCain supporting hypocritical Palinites who jumped on the band wagon... but the tea parties have their roots in the Ron Paul movement who hate Bush as much if not more than Obama (crazy for a bunch of racists, I know). So I am part of the other half.
For a while I was worried the "neo-cons are going to hijack our movement", I believe is exactly what I said when the tea parties started. They haven't. =)
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
The neo-cons are probably afraid of populist power. After all, it was a wave of populist sentiment that ushered the in the presidency of Andrew Jackson who abolished the Bank of the United States, a predecessor to the modern Federal Reserve bank.
jmelkis 2 years ago 2
And it was populist sentiment from the credit expansion of the central bank driving asset bubbles, similar to now. Except now, the harvard trained game theory mathamaticians and technocrats are much smarter and are doing a much better job by creating full employment (as if we couldn't do that on our own) and protecting the middle class, the backbone of the country. They are oh so selfless. Thank the stars we have such wise, enlightened masters.
n66178 2 years ago 2
Yeah, I've been working on a series of videos about the stupid so-called Cash for Clunkers policy (which was originally endorsed by Bush I during his presidency, actually). Anyway, I came across an article that was talking about Cash for Clunkers, and one reason they are doing it is because cars are actually lasting LONGER. What a shame! I mean, if the market were allowed to act, there'd be incentive to move into other industries, and let the car ind. be smaller, yet still fulfilling needs.
jmelkis 2 years ago
I can't wait to see the videos.
n66178 2 years ago
There is already one up, and I'm about to make another one soon. I'm hoping to basically just put together all of information I have found so far.
jmelkis 2 years ago
Have you read Rothbard's History of Money and Banking in the US from the Colonial Period to World War 2 yet? I am still getting through it. Fiercely dry and academic - I am really enjoying it.
n66178 2 years ago
Tea Party types are not concerned with Obama because he is black; they are critical of him due to what they perceive as ideological differences. Don't get me wrong; I disagree with the Tea Party movement. In fact, I consider myself a socialist. Do I, however, see race involved with opposing Obama from the right? Not really. I can relate as a leftist that is too the left of Obama. There is good reason to oppose him. I hope his healthcare plan does not go through because it corporate welfare.
PsychoPunk1965 2 years ago
Obama represents why I don't support socialism. Because government is ultimately self serving and public servants will always use the power gifted them to meet their own ends, and to help their rich friends. So long as you dress it up as something else, both Obama and Bush have done this, most people will be too busy fighting over the details to notice just how corrupt the system is.
If people were more vigilant of their government and more critical of it I wouldn't be as up in arms.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago 2
Ron Paul held the first tea party, if I remember correctly.
n66178 2 years ago 2
@n66178
Ron Paul is a Mason, and therefore is suspect, IMHO.....
VonHelton 2 years ago
you're kidding right?
n66178 2 years ago
@n66178
Google is yer friend!
VonHelton 2 years ago
I meant, what the hell difference does that make? It seems fairly irrelevant to me. And also, don't believe everything google tells you.
n66178 2 years ago
@n66178
Actually, it's very relevant. Any high level Mason is in bed with the elite. They have to be, or they are killed.
So that begs the question: Is Ron Paul dead?
VonHelton 2 years ago
Yea, he's dead dude, the illuminati contacted the Rothschilds and together they hired a hit man to pour hot crab oil on him. Again, I'm not sure if you are correct, and I think you are jumping to a conclusion that seems based on some shaky research and assumptions. No offense.
n66178 2 years ago
@n66178
They certainly didn't have any trouble killing JFK.
"Secret societies are an anathema to a free people" - JFK
VonHelton 2 years ago
Why do I get the feeling you are about to accuse the Masons of orchestrating 9-11?
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago 2
@Silvsilvchan
No, but they WERE told not to fly on 911.
If you're serous about knowing this stuff, research a man named "Adam Weishopt (sp?)"
He is how all of this crap got started.
VonHelton 2 years ago
@VonHelton
I've heard of that, VonHelton. That's probably true since the John Birch Society is a controversal organization.
If Ron Paul is a controlled opposition, then how come Ron Paul is considered a racist by Wolf Blitzer and anti-semetic by Jamie Kirchick?
NYJared04 2 years ago
@NYJared04
It's rumored that the NWO is becoming fractured.
VonHelton 2 years ago
Great commentary!
bittergunowner12 2 years ago
AMEN, BROTHER!!
Obama and the neocons are ONE and the SAME. Obama truly is Bush's 3rd term. Why? Because the WARS RAGE ON!
jmelkis 2 years ago
make no mistake, the united states is not in the least concerned with spreading democracy. rather, they are more concerned with controlling the resources of the world and indebting other countries to the world bank by using their military as enforcers. all of this right vs. left, spreading democracy talk is distraction for the real powers to operate in the open by confusing people as to the nature of what it is they are actually doing.
n66178 2 years ago 2
Well said!I agree with what you are saying to a point. However, I disagree with those who would say that we went to war for oil, or rather, we went to war because we consume so much oil. That's not why we went to war. Other countries are more than happy to sell us oil. They do it all of the time without war. It seems the wars rather are to support socialistically the Military-Industrial Complex. Control of resources is simply a very welcome bonus, enriching a few, well-connected people.
jmelkis 2 years ago
True, the arms manufacturers benefit from prolonged killing. Not only are we living the dream of the Progressive movement from the 20's and 30's domestically, we are also living the dream of the monetary imperialists from the turn of the century, when the economic inteligensia saw an opportunity to influence human action through government and to spread the power of the banking cartel (that we all serve) by enticing other countries to use the money that our masters supplied to them. I digress.
n66178 2 years ago
Your a little off this week, Jack. Progressives of 1912 may have been about spreading democracy, but these days they are the ones on the left trying to bring our troops home. The rank and file of the Republican party seems to still be for continued spreading of democracy.
johnqpublic81 2 years ago
It seemed like to me that the progressives were trying to bring the troops home until Obama took office. I'm sure that some committed lefty types still are fighting for this, fighting against the Democratic Party on this issue. But so often it seems that opposition just melts away when "your" party gets into office. (I don't mean yours per se, but when people view that their own party is in power, they shut up. Thus politics just becomes a football game.).
jmelkis 2 years ago
I voted for Ralph Nader in 2008 because I viewed Barack Obama as just another "Democratic Party corporate centrist" which are every bit as bad as the "neo-cons" in the Republican Party. Both centrist Dems and neo-con Republicans only adhere to corporate special interests. They are both willing to allow China to financially take over us. I think that leftists in the Democratic Party and paleocons/libertarians in the Republican Party should both leave their parties and formed their own parties.
PsychoPunk1965 2 years ago
Just to add more to this discussion, I really do not think that all the horrible situation in the United States today can be summed simply into the old "left vs. right" paradigm. It is looking more like a "left/right" versus another group of "left-right" in today's political climate.
PsychoPunk1965 2 years ago 2
Psychopunk you hit the nail on the head dude. Right after the Obama had his little debate at the republican Caucus a bunch of LIberals started rallying the cry for the same situation. And I can tell you they didn't want it for praise they wanted it for hardcore criticism.
PoliticalSkeptic 2 years ago
Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney vs Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul?
It can't even be summed up with four groups. There are so many differing agendas... I guess it all boils down to what is most important to a person. I was 'moderate' in concern to Iraq, and heavy pro-war in concern to Afghanistan and Pakistan in late 2007. Ron Paul spoke to my soul on fiscal issues and civil liberties which I considered more important, so I supported him anyway. I was eventually converted, but you get the idea.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago 2
With an issue like the Federal Reserve, it pretty much outweighs everything else.
jmelkis 2 years ago 2
Honestly, I wasn't able to vote for a third party in my state due to my state's ridiculous ballot access laws. Despite being considered a conservative libertarian given the four major third party contenders, Nader, McKinney, Baldwin, and Barr, I would have voted Nader.
I think that the Nader types and the Buchanan types and the Perot and Paul types should come together to fight the mainstream. But we all recall how it went when Buchanan went reform in 2000. We squabble over petty non-issues.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Before, I might have criticized you for possibly letting someone like McCain win. I would've said something like, "McCain will be Bush's third term!" But you know, history has proven me and you right because Obama got in, and he was Bush's third term. They are both war-monger parties. Nader was right all along.
About China, the reason for that is that we don't have any savings in this country. Chinese people save. But really the problem is the Fed, not China.
jmelkis 2 years ago 2
i hate when republicans talk about the budget deficit but are willing to talk about the military budget . bullets cost money so do military bases
calexrose 2 years ago 3
That's where all of our money is really going...that and the bailouts.
jmelkis 2 years ago 2
Interesting argument, but wrong.
Progressive ideology is almost antithetical to conservatism and neoconservatism.
Neoconservatism is akin to neoliberalism, though the video never mentions this.
RegimeChanger 2 years ago
No, he is not wrong. Bush's foreign policy really did come from Wilson's. And Obama's policy just continues this.
jmelkis 2 years ago
Not that I disagree that Neo-cons aren't what amounts to 'war liberals', Wilson came from an era when Republicans were considered progressive and Democrats were considered conservative. Grover Clevland was one of the most libertarian/conservative presidents we've ever had, and he was the last democrat in office prior to Wilson. Wilson also ran on a ticket of non-intervention in 1912. I know, given what he did in Mexico then WWI that's hilarious. And oh look, history is repeating itself.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Above my head. I hope you were saying, the guys who want war are wrong.
curiouschem 2 years ago 3
That's all you really need to know. :-)
jmelkis 2 years ago
let's help boot live up to his name and boot him out of the GOP.
Wasp16mm 2 years ago
Max Boot is CFR, if you don't know who the CFR is then please look that evil "think tank" up!!!!!!!!!!!!!
droogie76 2 years ago
@droogie76 the cfr was founded by fabian socialists was goal all along was world socialism and the end of american soverignty. seeing how cheney was once president it's very laughable to consider him conservative in any way shape or form.
jpchronic420 2 years ago 3
If I'm not mistaken they set the major foreign policy objectives for this county. I'm sure you have you seen the cspan clip a few months ago of Hillary proclaiming "to get her marching orders from the CFR."
droogie76 2 years ago
@droogie76 saw that one
jpchronic420 2 years ago
True Conservativism is actually rooted in Classical-Liberalism ie: limited Gov't. maximum individual freedom.
I wish you wouldn't use "liberal" as a put-down for Progressive socialists.
I am a proud "Liberal" in the classical sense.
JessicaBelle81 2 years ago 7
I sometimes wonder if they screw up all of these terms so people can't learn about the history of ideas and then everything is stuck in this sort of rootless modern Newsweek/Time/MSNBC/FoxNews world.
jmelkis 2 years ago
Honestly, words like liberal and conservative hold little meaning to me anymore. I know what Jack means when he says liberal and conservative. I know what Hannity means when he says liberal and conservative. The point being the words hold dramatically different meanings to different people.
For instance, there are people that believe Libertarian = Objectivist. I disagree.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Neo-cons are generally active Zionists, while Conservatives are generally isolationists..
in my opinion, that is the most definitive separation between the these two idealogies. Every other distinction between the two is peripheral.
Military intervention for the interest of Israel is always at the core of the neo-con agenda..
it's subjective, wheteher this agenda is good or bad, but in my opinion it is the undeniable nucleus of neo-con idealogy.
GeorgeWashingtonX 2 years ago 3
Yes, but North Korea isn't for the sake of Israel. Israel and Zionism is just an excuse they make when it fits the situation.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
the meaning of conservative has been changed three times in the past century or so.
return135 2 years ago
Neocons are socialists who have infiltrated the conservative movement.
VonHelton 2 years ago 6
...and socialism is anything you don't like, it appears.
Why don't you look up the actual definition of socialism?
Neitzluber 2 years ago
@Neitzluber
Yer right, I hate Socialism. All I have to do is look at how socialism has trashed Europe.
VonHelton 2 years ago 4
Yes, Europe has been trashed... that's why overall GDP has doubled since the 1990s.
Look at the current ruling party in the European Parliament, it is the EPP, a conservative party... oops!
Neitzluber 2 years ago
@Neitzluber
No conservative (no TRUE conservative, anyway) would've allowed you to throw away your national sovereignty, nor would they stand idly by while Europe became a Muslim enclave.
Experts estimate that Europe will be an Islamic Caliphate by 2035 if things continue as they are now.
VonHelton 2 years ago
Islamic caliphate? Please....
Only 6% of the population are Muslims.
Neitzluber 2 years ago
@Neitzluber
Wow......No wonder the Muslims are taking over, you have no clue!
Here, watch this.
watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
VonHelton 2 years ago
VonHelton,
you're a silly zionist neocon aren't you? go back to licking netanyahu's tiny cock. this is america damn it, not israhell number 2. I WANT MY CONSTITUTION BACK.
SushiHead20 2 years ago
@SushiHead20
So you support mass genocide of the Jews, eh? I know someone else who thought that way.
.......ADOLPH HITLER.
VonHelton 2 years ago
VonHelton,
i didn't say i wanted to kill jews. supporting/defending any country besides america is traitorious and highly unconstitutional.
don't compare me to hitler because i'm a constitutionalist, that's comparing the founders to hitler and that is not a smart thing to say to us. now go back to worshiping obama, or palin, which ever side of the same coin you prefer.
SushiHead20 2 years ago
@SushiHead20
Excuse me, but if you support the PLO, then you are a terrorist, yes.
VonHelton 2 years ago
VonHelton,
i don't support anyone but america. quit accusing me of being an "enemy figure" just because i take the constitutional approach which is to not support anyone including israhell.
the constitution forbids defending any (including israhell) country besides america as it's traitorious.
why do you hate the constitution?
united states>israhell
AMERICA FIRST!!!
SushiHead20 2 years ago
@SushiHead20
You say the land belongs to the PLO, not the Jews. The PLO is a terrorist organization.
Therefore, you support terrorism.
VonHelton 2 years ago
Evidently that guy's never heard of things like "Sharia law", the Hamas, and totally forgot about 9-11 among other things..
Tsuruta1 2 years ago 2
@Tsuruta1
A good way to shut up PLO supporters is to ask them what they want to do with the millions of Jews that already live there.
VonHelton 2 years ago
Yes. Because you and I already know what they want to do to them, which is to kill them.
Tsuruta1 2 years ago
@Tsuruta1
Correct. Yassir Arafat made it abundantly clear that you CANNOT call yourself a "palestinian" unless you want to kill all Jews & push Israel into the sea.
VonHelton 2 years ago
I'll admit that I wasn't as familiar with the issues concerning the matters of Israel and the Mideast in the past, but as I started to listen to Pastor John Hagee, and Coral Ridge Ministries, it's been made a whole lot clearer in understanding the Nation of Israel, and it's significance.
Tsuruta1 2 years ago
@Tsuruta1 John Hagee said Jesus Christ did not come to be the Messiah of the Jews. That is a direct quote. You can find it here on YouTube. Don't listen to all of these Christian Zionist preachers. They're snakes.
For that matter, don't listen to VonHelton, he's ignorant. Read my comments to him.
SupositoryRepository 2 years ago
@SupositoryRepository If you want me to hear that quote, send me that clip, and I will examine for myself what Pastor Hagee says. If he's in error I'll find out. But no "pastor bashing" if you wish to reply to me, as indicated on my disclaimer. But no matter who says what, it has always been the sworn objective of the extreme Islamofascists to kill the the people of Israel and take their land believeing it's their land and not the Jews.
Tsuruta1 2 years ago
@Tsuruta1
Have you read any Israeli newspapers recently? Jewish rabbis, who hold official position in the IDF tell soldiers it is their duty to slaughter all non-Jewish men women and children because it is THEIR land.
The clip I speak of always gets deleted. Just search "John Hagee Messiah." Currently it's at the top of the search results.
SupositoryRepository 2 years ago
@SupositoryRepository No you send me the clip, you said it's on here so you send it. And no I have not read any Israeli newspapers. And I don't deny that it's possible to have some zealots today in Israel just as it was during the time when they were ruled by the Roman Empire during Biblical times, but that changes nothing. As it says in the Bible, Israel belongs to the Semitic people of Israel, not Palestinians.
Tsuruta1 2 years ago
Tsuruta1,
do you know what the pro-constitution position is on this subject? NONE OF OUR DAMN BUSINESS. LET THEM BLOW EACH OTHER UP. FUCK THEM. ALL OF THEM. AMERICA ONLY. AMERICA FIRST. NO ONE SECOND.
SushiHead20 2 years ago
@SushiHead20 You evidently don't accept the teachings of the Bible.
Tsuruta1 2 years ago