Lose the puffery; you objectively overuse the word objectively.
He refuses to judge minorities by objective standards.
Please expand on this fascinating concept of judging minorities by objective standards.
He opposes the nation-state
Grover is not anarchist. To imply otherwise is paranoia and hysteria.
He is ignorant of the charges because he refuses to see them.
Circular logic, begging the question; next.
He cares more about bringing the Muslim vote than the threat to the country
Paleos should disdain the open-border WTO-supporting PC relativistic Norquist.
America will never abandon free minds and free markets.
Don't tell me that the blinding hatred of Neocons by paleocons are bliding them to objective threats.
You overuse the Disagreement Is Blindness metaphor. You misspell it on the third use because your hands are as tired of typing it as we are of reading it.
1. Is that Michael or William Lind?
The particular author has no bearing on the fact of the statement.
many neocons including Kristol were DEMOCRATS in 1970
Read harder: Lind (objectively) says 1970s. Not 1970 (your strawman).
Maybe you would have noticed that little detail if you weren't so...
blinded by your hatred of paleocons.
"He opposes the nation-state"
Grover is not anarchist. To imply otherwise is paranoia and hysteria.
There is a difference between opposing the nation-state and opposing government. Tranzis support global government, Free-trade, and open immigration. However then support one-world governance through a modified UN. Norquist is no tranzi, but he does not care for the sovereignty of the US because he is a libertarian, not a traditionalist.
"He is ignorant of the charges because he refuses to see them."
Circular logic, begging the question; next.
Not at all; the human ability of self-deception is astounding. Take a look at the spouses of criminals.
Ratner writes that I want to "bring Islamic fundamentalists into the Republican Party without regard to how they feel about terrorism or Americans, let alone Republicans." This is not true. And it is silly. It is, however, a sad lie that a handful of bigots have tried to spread to attack President Bush and others.
A yes "bigots"!
Hiding behind the charge of racism is liberal trait.
"Paleos should disdain the open-border WTO-supporting PC relativistic Norquist. "
America will never abandon free minds and free markets.
The average Paleoconservative has as much disdain for Reason Magazine as they do for the Weekly Standard.
Paleos support tariffs.
You seem rather ignorant of Paleoconservatism. May I suggest that you look up the "Chronicle" symposium on the history and ideological underpinnings of paleoconservatism?
You overuse the Disagreement Is Blindness metaphor. You misspell it on the third use because your hands are as tired of typing it as we are of reading it.
I get tired at 3AM.
"1. Is that Michael or William Lind?"
The particular author has no bearing on the fact of the statement.
1. I do not agree wit the asserted veracity of the statement.
2. Whether the author was a liberal former Neocon or a Paleoconservative does matter.
Michael Lind is a homosexual who makes a living slandering conservatives. William Lind simply dislikes neocons.
Read harder: Lind (objectively) says 1970s. Not 1970 (your strawman).
So we have an unsubstantiated claim of a conspiracy that occured sometime in a decade.
That borders on LaRouches veracity.