Posted on 05/06/2008 8:59:30 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
McGovern's campaign slogan was "come home, America"--about as isolationist a slogan as there ever was.
Wikipedia can be edited...duh.
I have no problem with any of that, as long as they vote for conservatives. They can join up with the Illuminati and the Whataburgers for all I care as long as they vote conservative.
Well. You are holding out this article as some kind of charter document on neoconservatism, and THIS is your idea of a definition? Would you agree that it is rather...subjective?
The author thinks that our presence in the Middle East is "Adventurism".
Just so you don't accuse me of putting words in his mouth, here is the relevant quote: "...the leaders of the Bush administration, who slavishly follow neocon thinking both domestically and in their foreign-policy adventurism..."
This is the flaw. People who are proponenents of this viewpoint, that we should not be in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines or any other country are quick to label as "neocons" anyone who thinks we DO have valid reasons for being there.
A lot of those people applying that intentionally derogatory appellation to people who disagree with them are the same ones who will scream absolutely the loudest when their gasoline gets scarce, or a terrorist attack occurs.
Personally, I have no use for someone who applies this label to anyone who disagrees with them.
Including the author of this screed.
I concur.
Neoconservatism . . . dislikes national independence and favors world government under the United Nations.
JOHN BOLTON, AS AN INTERIM APPOINTEE OF THE CURRENT PRESIDENT BUSH AS AMBASSADOR TO THE UN, MUST THEREFORE BE A “NEOCON,” YET DOES HE FAVOR WORLD GOVERNMENT UNDER THE UN?
But PLEASE let up on the name calling long enough to supply specific instances where the author is in error with any of this!
OK, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.
If you love America for its history of limited government and strict independence, you have to realize that neoconservatives are your enemy. And you have to realize that the current administration is replete with un-American neoconservatism.
THIS IS A QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE. WHO’S DOING THE NAME-CALLING (”UN-AMERICAN”)?
If 218 members of the House refuse to vote to fund foreign aid, the UN, undeclared wars, education, housing, and so much more, that’s it. There’s nothing the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, or The New York Times can do about it. The House is where the effort of concerned Americans ought to be directed.
THAT’S CORRECT, NEEDLESS TO SAY, ABOUT THE HOUSE’S POWER OF THE PURSE. HOWEVER, IF MCMANUS THINKS THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES - AT LEAST OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS UNDER THE LATEST SULZBERGER (”PINCH”)- IS AN ADVOCATE OF THE “NEOCON AGENDA,” THEN HE IS (TO SAY THE LEAST) VERY OUT OF TOUCH.
The alliance between Buckley and a host of neoconservatives grew deeper and deeper.
IINM, BUCKLEY OPPOSED THE WAR IN IRAQ FROM THE BEGINNING.
Spoken like a true “Hunterite”.
I was once a Bircher myself, but left because the John Birch Society refused to support Ronald Reagan in the mid-1970's. In fact, the Birchers were downright hostile to Reagan, whom the rest of America's conservatives enthusiastically supported.
For some reason, the Birchers were also against Proposition 13, California's ballot initiative seeking to curb property taxes, which the voters passed in 1978--I recall attending a meeting at which Birch spokesman R. D. Patrick Mahoney spoke out against the initiative. once again, the JBS was not on the same page as the rest of the conservative movement.
I thought this had already been decided. Neoconservatives are jewish. Paleoconservatives are nazi’s. At least, that’s what the MSM says.
Both parties are corrupt to the core and will defame and destroy any who attempt to take them down. You see it on this very forum when party stooges come out to label men like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and Allen Keyes as kooks and nutjobs. It is not enough to say they disagree on certain points with these men - no they seek to ridicule, devalue, and destroy them. Don't dare challenge the power elite, don't stand for anything, just fall in line and become another party flunky and stooge is what they are telling us.
So what do patriots do about it? We wait for the opportunity to take back at least part of the nation, and most definitely we don't give comfort to the major parties. And certainly we must pray that there are more of us out there than we know. Maybe the fallout from the coming presidential election will give freedom loving Americans a direction to follow.
Which, according to Ron Paul and some here on FR, includes those who were/are in favor of the Iraq war. :::shrug:::
Interesting approach.
Maintain freedom in the US by conquering and ruling the rest of the world.
Leaving the morality and practicality of such a project aside (the 12M man Red Army might have been a bit of a problem), conquest and empire are by definition incompatible with freedom.
As my tagline says...
Absolutely correct. However, since the House will almost surely have a larger Democratic Party majority next year, this seems pretty unlikely to happen.
The author's problem is that he doesn't seem to realize that he is part of a tiny minority. How are he and his 5% (to be generous) planning to win elections? They spend most of their time insulting those who might potentially be their tactical allies.
Considering Hunter was more Reagan-like than Reagan himself, that is a gross mis-characterization.
The Birchers #1 reason for existence was anti-communism. Who is a more rock ribbed anti-communist, Hunter or Paul?
The Birchers claim to be pro-life. Whose record on pro-life issues has no gaps, Hunter of Paul?
The Birchers now claim that Ronald Reagan was one of the good guys (though their history is bit more shaky on this). Who advocates Reagan level funding of our military, including space based weapon systems? Hunter or Paul?
The CP and the Birchers both claim that our trade policy needs to be retooled to help the US industrial base. Who has fought tooth and nail to do that, as opposed to having the "free trade" with commie nations? Hunter of Paul?
Who is an original co-sponsor of the Fair tax, with the added emphasis of ditching the IRS?
Who called for eliminating the all taxation on US manufacturers?
Who has done more than any other individual since Ike to fight the invasion of illegal aliens?
Who was responsible for rejecting the PC nonsense in the military that prevented chaplains from using Jesus' name in certain prayers?
Who doesn't give a rip what the "world" thinks about the United States? Instead of groveling like McCain, Huckabee, Paul and the rest of the candidates said this in response instead: "I will NEVER apologize for the United States of America".
Who refused to pander for even a split second at the "minorities" debate, unlike Keyes and Paul? And instead brought up the great history that the Republican party has in treating minorities as equals?
Who rejects all calls for socialized medicine, RomneyCare, HillaryCare, etc and instead wanted to rip down the barriers for insurers and doctors to deal directly with the consumers, getting gov't out of the way?
Who wants to allow drilling in ANWR, drill off the coasts, increase coal and shale extraction, build nuke plants, and eliminate the bureaucracy holding up refining permits?
Who has a 7% rating from the League of Conservation voters?
The answer to all of the above is Duncan Hunter. The man who should be president.
Now, of course, the area is filled with former philly residents. A shame.
I always heard of a real kookyness about the Birchers, but, in fact, I never saw it in real life, just reading mostly MSM reports about them, which I see in retrospect, were hatchet jobs portraying them as nuts.
Their two big points at the time were:
1) Get the US out of the UN and the the UN out of the US.
2) Get liberal communist doctrine out of our schools and government.
What Conservative here argues with either of those two points?
You are just a spring chicken
>the entire bill for my birth in 1964 was a grand total of $185 and that included the hospital stay.
and that was just before the first government intrusion into the market freed it from the dynamics and sound principles of the Free Market.
Medicare.
Well this chicken is feeling a little sprung. More some days than others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.