Frst GOP debate tonight 9PM EST...Ron Paul will be there

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Neoconservatives are Socialists in my book, at least Statists. They are not Conservative for the simple reason that nothing enlarges the state quite like a war does. So anyone who is in favor of these unconstitutional and unnecessary wars is a Statist. Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum were both trying to find a way to out-Socialist/Statist the other. But I have to hand it to Santorum he has it licked.

Those among us who are liberty lovers and support limited government, i.e. real conservatives. Would never support either of those stooges. As for Herman Cain, any man who can head a branch of the Federal Reserve is beyond sold out.

Here's the first paragraph in wikipedia on the definition of Neocon

Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American Conservatism that focuses on foreign policy, where it proposes to use American economic and military power to bring democracy and freedom to other countries.[1] The movement emerged in the 1970s among Democrats who were angry at the party's move to the left especially in foreign policy, and played a major role in recent Republican presidential elections. It is notable for its support for Israel and its deep interest in the Middle East.

Notice the word "Democrats" in that? I have noticed that people often substitute the word "Republican" for "Neocon" because it is perceived that the Republican Party is all about opposing Cold War Soviet Style communism, or that they are for corporatism. Paul Woflowitz comes to mind. I figure that Neo means newly or partially.
Ok, let's explore this some more. Wikipedia goes on to say:

The term neoconservative was used at one time as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right".[2][3] Socialist Michael Harrington coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 article concerning welfare policy.[4] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."[5] The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush.[6][7] with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.[8] The term neocon is often used as pejorative in this context.

Most neoconservatives had been liberals or leftists in the 1930s and 1940s, then moved right in reaction to Stalinism and supported the Cold War. Some emerged from intellectual milieu of the mid-20th century New York City.[12] Most were liberal Democrats into the 1960s, when they were confronted with the New Left and rethought their positions. Many became followers of Senator Henry M. Jackson, a liberal Democrat in domestic affairs who rejected detente and demanded a hard-line against the Soviet Union in the 1970s.[13]

So, now that we have a clearer understanding of the root definition, maybe people will stop calling all conservatives NEOCONS.

I never called all conservatives Neoconservatives, I called Neoconservatives Neoconservatives. That is because they are neocons. And trust me I know plenty about Neoconservatism and where it comes from. If you want to know more read This.

Republicans used to be legitimate and real conservatives until the Neocons were unfortunately welcomed in under Reagan then hijacked the party under Bush. I know who is and is not a Neoconservative. Being a Paleoconservative and having read countless educational resources, books, and websites on the divisions and differences between the two I am pretty sure I know who and what are/is Neoconservative.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Obviously I can tell you were pointing at me because we don't see eye-to-eye on who is adequately conservative. Statism and borderline Socialism are not what I consider Conservatism, I'm sorry. Being a John Bircher has taught me to keep a good eye out on all the sock puppets and pseudo-conservatives.

edit on 5/6/2011 by Misoir because: Not trying to pick a fight

Thank you for providing me with that info. I actually appreciate your being a Bircher. I picked on you why? I totally agree with you that Statism and Socialism are both not true conservativism, and that is my point. I would agree that Statism can be either on the left or the right. I can understand that a Neocon is perceived as a right leaning Statist. But now that we know that the true definition of Neocon is one who came from the Left, it makes more sense doesn't it?
Thanks to those who pointed out the Fed Res past of Cain. I am taking that into account.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


We probably just had a misunderstanding, no worries.

Yes we both recognize that Neoconservative are illegal aliens from the left who have invaded the Republican Party. They are not truly Conservative and they are not truly Republican. They were Socialists and Liberals prior to the Liberals becoming "anti-war" during the Hippie movement. They have not abandoned any of their true colors such as support for large welfare state, military intervention, or statism. They are not truly conservative.

I can tolerate Liberal conservatives, like the ones from the Northeast who resided in the GOP from 1860-1980 although I prefer the Isolationist conservatives from the Midwest like Robert A. Taft a.k.a. "Mr. Republican".

But these statists have no interest in balanced budgets, free-market capitalism, business competition, constitutionalism, non-interventionism, protecting domestic industries, or individualism. They prefer collectivism. They are like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. These people are actually Democrats in Republican clothing.

Originally posted by Misoir
I never called all conservatives Neoconservatives, I called Neoconservatives Neoconservatives. That is because they are neocons. And trust me I know plenty about Neoconservatism and where it comes from. If you want to know more read This.

Republicans used to be legitimate and real conservatives until the Neocons were unfortunately welcomed in under Reagan then hijacked the party under Bush. I know who is and is not a Neoconservative. Being a Paleoconservative and having read countless educational resources, books, and websites on the divisions and differences between the two I am pretty sure I know who and what are/is Neoconservative.

Ok thanks for that. Looks similar to what I just posted from wiki. Yes I actually agree with you, the Republican Party has been seriously degraded. This is why there is a movement to change that. People want to see more true conservatives come to the fore. But that is precisely what I reacted to when I saw that the more conservative of the Republicans were being bashed here tonight. It is interesting that the focus group on Hannity mostly never heard of Cain before tonight but liked what he said, and would switch from another candidate. Some said they won't pick Romney. I hope that Romney won't be rammed thru by the RNC. Why do we need the Republican version of Obamacare?

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

We probably just had a misunderstanding, no worries.

Yes we both recognize that Neoconservative are illegal aliens from the left who have invaded the Republican Party. They are not truly Conservative and they are not truly Republican. They were Socialists and Liberals prior to the Liberals becoming "anti-war" during the Hippie movement. They have not abandoned any of their true colors such as support for large welfare state, military intervention, or statism. They are not truly conservative.

I can tolerate Liberal conservatives, like the ones from the Northeast who resided in the GOP from 1860-1980 although I prefer the Isolationist conservatives from the Midwest like Robert A. Taft a.k.a. "Mr. Republican".

But these statists have no interest in balanced budgets, free-market capitalism, business competition, constitutionalism, non-interventionism, protecting domestic industries, or individualism. They prefer collectivism. They are like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. These people are actually Democrats in Republican clothing.

Ok that is what Tea Partiers are calling RINOS. lol

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I think our current politics are seen as one party because the set-up is:

Democratic Party = New Left (1968-now)
Republican Party = Old Left (1932-1967)

Pick your choice. Who do you want? Democrats after 1968 then vote Democratic Party now. Democrats before 1968 then vote Republican Party. Those of us who are actually Republicans have been marginalized and kicked out of the party. Some have just broken off from disaffection and became Progressives. But I guarantee you their ideas of freedom while they may be different those disaffected former Conservatives would rejoin us if we put up candidates like Ron Paul.

reply to post by Misoir


As I see it, part of the problem is that one of the stated goals of communism was to gain control of one or both of the two major political parties in the US. So they set up a Hegelian dialectic of the two party system whereby the clashing of the opposites would provide a synthesis, according to Antony Sutton which synthesis would be neither right nor left and which is the NWO. That is why it can seem so confusing because the lines get all blurry, and then we call that "centrism". The ideal Hegelian is one who can convince people of both parties he's their man.
Just my opinion though, based on my reading of Antony Sutton.
Yah, Ron Paul is truly a unique person in the political schema. Do you think the CFR and the Fed are gonna let him get elected? I really believe that the Shadow govt is totally and unequivocally behind the current POTUS.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


If Ron Paul is nominated to run as GOP nominee against Obama he will be able to spread his message far and wide. They would be hard pressed to kill him so quickly because they know that would result in a massive uprising because people will know he went in there to change things then died so suddenly. Of course they would play it off as his old age which about 50% of people would buy but I doubt the other 50% would be so willing to accept that.

So they would have to tread carefully with him. Probably what they will do instead is launch a campaign buying up all of the Congressmen and Senators to create a unified block against everything he wants to do then override his vetoes. Once again people would be outraged at that however.

So for them this is one of those games where they have to just place their bets that they can manipulate the people good enough to keep him from winning the nomination.

reply to post by Misoir


Right, we see how they played the age card with McCain(not that I like McCain). Ron Paul has a fiery side to his character, which I thought came out very nicely in 08.
I apologize also for offending you in any way, or others in this thread.

Yeah good debate. But some of the posters are claiming statements that were not said. Some of you are trying to read into something , or make something out of nothing....get over yourself.

reply to post by AshleyD


spot on what? he was wrong on the recovery, he was wrong on the tarp bailouts, he was wrong on qe2 and qe1. the dollar did not crash.

qe has worked. markets keep on going up. earnings keep being blowout. the dxy is still alive and reserve currency. it is going up huge yesterday and huge again today. tarp worked and made a profit for the tax payer. ron paul has been wrong on a lot more too. continue worshipping this guy who has no degree in economics of ba. lmao

Originally posted by Foodman
reply to post by AshleyD

 

spot on what? he was wrong on the recovery, he was wrong on the tarp bailouts, he was wrong on qe2 and qe1. the dollar did not crash.

qe has worked. markets keep on going up. earnings keep being blowout. the dxy is still alive and reserve currency. it is going up huge yesterday and huge again today. tarp worked and made a profit for the tax payer. ron paul has been wrong on a lot more too. continue worshipping this guy who has no degree in economics of ba. lmao

Whaaaat? Tarp was a huge disaster that had almost zero oversight. It was a target of fraud to allow execs to steal from the tax payer by crying wolf. The "profit" from tarp was simply a number they pointed to because it cost less than was projected. And to say quantitative easing central banking was successful is plain silly. It's only successful because they keep doing it! You can't keep doing it forever and, when you stop, we will be screwed. It's no different than applying for credit cards to pay off more credit cards. We all had those friends in college with new cars, big tvs and, 5 years later, they go bankrupt.

Ok, as far as the debate:
Anybody find it strange there are two GOP candidates who want to legalize drugs? I'm not even sure there is a democrat sporting that position. Does that mean that this GOP line-up is more liberal than the Democrats?

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Foodman
reply to post by AshleyD

 

spot on what? he was wrong on the recovery, he was wrong on the tarp bailouts, he was wrong on qe2 and qe1. the dollar did not crash.

qe has worked. markets keep on going up. earnings keep being blowout. the dxy is still alive and reserve currency. it is going up huge yesterday and huge again today. tarp worked and made a profit for the tax payer. ron paul has been wrong on a lot more too. continue worshipping this guy who has no degree in economics of ba. lmao

Whaaaat? Tarp was a huge disaster that had almost zero oversight. It was a target of fraud to allow execs to steal from the tax payer by crying wolf. The "profit" from tarp was simply a number they pointed to because it cost less than was projected. And to say quantitative easing central banking was successful is plain silly. It's only successful because they keep doing it! You can't keep doing it forever and, when you stop, we will be screwed. It's no different than applying for credit cards to pay off more credit cards. We all had those friends in college with new cars, big tvs and, 5 years later, they go bankrupt.

Ok, as far as the debate:
Anybody find it strange there are two GOP candidates who want to legalize drugs? I'm not even sure there is a democrat sporting that position. Does that mean that this GOP line-up is more liberal than the Democrats?

Also the stimulus package worked too. It helped prevent a depression

What are you talking about? Tarp did fantastic job in preventing a collapse. Read this.