Posted on 08/13/2002 6:51:09 AM PDT by rdb3
That will make them think twice.
When you pay up I want you to wear that propellor thingy.
I'm too young to remember The Gipper's radio show, however, you are both right AND wrong about the Chicago economics school. You're right that they weren't "neos," but you're DEAD WRONG about them being paleos. They were libertarians.
Economics is the one area where I agree with libertarians. But claiming this as evidence of "paleo" help is out-and-out lie.
Why don't you ask for evidence backing my claim that most of the GOP's newfound Neocon buddies are just fair-weather Republicans that wouldn't take a turn out of power after the attempt at stealing the 2000 election for Gore failed.
This is pure hearsay on your part. Am I just to take your word for it? Were you there interviewing each Pub and asking them if they were "paleos" or "neos?" If you were not and did not, you can't make this claim. Fact is, you don't know. Neither do I since I was not there, either, and didn't conduct any interviews. If you think I'm going to accept your speculation at face value, you're mentally disturbed.
Could it be that you'd rather not see the evidence that the Neocons support was NOWHERE to be found before Bush was declared the winner and in office?
Asked and answered. You don't have any evidence. You don't even have anecdotal evidence. All you have is your own skewed mental vision as to what a conservative is and/or is not. Also, you're using Leftist speak. The networks may have "declared" Dubya winner, but the fact is he won fair and square.
How many Neocons didja see out on the FL street waving Sore-Loserman signs at Fox News and CNN and MSNBC??? None. Fair-weather RINOs, these soggy scurvy 'RATS be...Yar! (/Sea Capt.)
Your mentioning of a Matrix is incriminating. Your Matrix is your mind.
You just made a fool of yourself by entering into evidence things which are not evidence. Hearsay is objectionable, not reliable.
Lastly, you can refer to me as a neocon. Fine. I like to think of myself more as a post-conservative, but that's another story. But since Reagan went from left-to-right in his political philosophy, he, too, can be accurately called a "neocon." You can't even claim him as yours, but I can since I went through a very similar "pilgrimmage" from left-to-right, as well.
I may be labeled a "neocon," but at least I can't be referred to as a "neo-Nazi" (hint-hint).
How many Neocons didja see out on the FL street waving Sore-Loserman signs at Fox News and CNN and MSNBC???
Define neo-Con. If it means Jewish Republican, well I was at the Federal Building in LA with my Sore-Loserman sign, supporting Bush. :)
It always comes down to that with your sort. Charges of dual loyalty. Watch out for those Mossad agents under your bed. ;)
Knock it off, and learn to spell.
LOL. I missed that. And let me use this post to correct myself. Irving Kristol did not work for Nixon as far as I know. I was thinking of Ben Stein's father. :) But Kristol did just win the MOF.
From post #48:
D&P: Also the Chicago school of economics played a huge role. They ain't no Neocons, Baby!rdb3: ...you are both right AND wrong about the Chicago economics school. You're right that they weren't "neos," but you're DEAD WRONG about them being paleos. They were libertarians.
You say the author is lying, but I caught you red-handed in a lie.
Score: rdb3 -- 7 D&P -- 0.
From post #48:
D&P: Why don't you ask for evidence backing my claim that most of the GOP's newfound Neocon buddies are just fair-weather Republicans that wouldn't take a turn out of power after the attempt at stealing the 2000 election for Gore failed.rdb3: This is pure hearsay on your part. Am I just to take your word for it? Were you there interviewing each Pub and asking them if they were "paleos" or "neos?" If you were not and did not, you can't make this claim.
No refutation to the evidence of hearsay being thrown out of court.
Score: rdb3 -- 14 D&P -- 0
Returning to the Chicago economic model. Nixon contained the U.S.S.R. Ford contained them as well. This policy dated back to Ike's Presidency.
Now, The Gipper shifted gears. He forced the U.S.S.R. to implode through the differences between our economic systems. The Soviets could not keep up with us in the arms race and lost. Was this a "paleo" move? Ike didn't do it. Nixon and Ford didn't do it. But Reagan did. Looking at your statement as to how the Chicago economic school model played a part, AND being shown unequivocally that it was NOT a "paleo" mindset that formed this economic school, your own "paleo-ness" just collapsed onto itself like Russia's did. Reagan's "neocon-influenced foreign policy" did win the Cold War. If it were left to the "paleos," we'd still be engaged in the Cold War nad the "paleos" would be looking for commies behind every tree.
Score: rdb3 -- 21 D&P -- 0
The ONLY point of this article is to demonize conservatives who dare raise objections to the agenda of the Neocons. It paints quite a pathological model of anti-neos with the broad brush of name-calling them peacenik hippies and Buchananite anti-semite conspiracy nuts.
Oh, like this from your new FR homepage, D&P?
FINAL SCORE: rdb3 -- 28 D&P -- 0
Maybe not. Whether it's war with Iraq, overturning the Saudis, or inevitable conflict with China, neo-cons have been promoting foreign adventures for years. The Boy Who Cried Wolf or Chicken Little may sometimes be right, but frequent alarms have made others doubt the alarmists. There's something exaggerated and overheated about neo-con enthusiasms that turns others off. If the military finds this venture necessary and desirable it deserves consideration, but discounting ideologues, lobbyists and opportunists is only common sense.
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.