A Tale of Two Rights by the Southern Avenger

A quick history of the "Old Right" and the roots of the conservative movement as it relates to the recent death of National Review founder William F. Buckley

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Southern
• Avenger
• William
• Bill
• Buckley
• conservative
• neoconservative
• paleo
• libertarian
• Old
• Right
• Pat
• Buchanan
• Ron
• Paul

[ColonelSanders6543]

antoher great video, I realize now that I am a paleoconservative and not a contemporary conservative

[VoteYourConsience]

it was a meritless immoral war. You are mistaken. Congress did not make a "declaration of war". But they approved the funding and allowed the president to have his war which is unconstitutional. It was a war built on lies. Neo-cons believe in no morals as long as their objectives are achived through intent justify means. so I do not expect them to look at it morally or debate if it was a just war. Are you a neocon?

[rickv404]

Can Conservatism ever, truly stand for absolute freedom or laissez-faire? I think not, regardless of which Conservatism we are talking about. They are religious, these conservatives, and as such, regard mankind as sinful by nature. Mankind thus can't be permitted to be free. Buckley was merely being consistent with his religious beliefs, as even Pat Buchanan is and would be. The Neo-Conservatives, they are the same, though not overtly religious.

[joe00727]

for those that dont know bill buckley was in the C.I.A. nuff said,

[chukmaty]

Fail video is fail.

[greenoffspring]

Woodrow Wilson and fdr were never ever liberals they were progressives and those are not the same things. Even Woodrow Wilson and fdr campaigned on small govt and promised "to keep us out of war." It is they who betrayed the old left and the old right is where it has always been on the left. That's kind of confusing though so I preffer not to get caught up in the left right trap like conservatives want us to be.

[utubehayter]

You are right. This is a waste of time. Clearly the Somalis should not have rebelled against a ultra socialist govt, instead they should have died off due to starvation - that would have been way better for them. Also, I should ignore the fact that the African Union, the UN and the US are trying to force a govt on the free somali people using military force - and yet the "anarchic" Somali people have successfully resisted the occupation thus far - giving a far superior army a bloody nose.

[Hunterkirk]

I have for a long time and clearly you don't know what you are talking about. So this is a waste of time. Have a good day.

[utubehayter]

Maybe that is what you are discussing. I am not interested in defining roles of govt. I am not deluded enough to imagine that I have the power to tell a govt - "hey, you can't do that!" without risk of facing violence - terrible violence. You can try to do that, when you succeed then you can get back to me - we can talk about sensible/reasonable things to do.

Arguing about a role you have no power over, is futile at best. We might as well be arguing of what colors should be in a rainbow.

[utubehayter]

You should probably read more Roman history.. and learn a bit more than watching news about Somalia.. a history of somalia, if you will. We can always discuss this after that. Apparently most Americans are so gullible they assume they know everything about Somalia based on "black hawk down" - hope you aren't one of them.

[Hunterkirk]

The problem we are not discussing economics. We are discussing the government and exactly how much if any is needed and what it's roles should be. So the only thing of value in your post was the "private protection agencies" remark.

As to history you already showed you were not aware of what happened after the Roman government failed. I am all for a smaller government but I see and have seen no evidence that no government would work well.

[utubehayter]

I will make this short -

Here is how this conversation will go. I will cite a bunch of economic laws, some propositions of how things can be done better with private protection agencies, cite historical accounts etc.

Those will either convince you or not.

If it does convince you - you will then realize that you do not have ANY actual control military spending. i.e. take that good sense and shove it.

Or you keep repeating how you can't see it happening. i.e. LALALALALA I can't hear you!