Posted on 05/18/2007 3:31:25 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis
His 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, is considered the foundation for post-WWII conservatism. Your ignorance of him proves Woods’ Point.
In this world we only have leaders and followers. In your case it is very apparent that you are a follower. On the other hand, I am not. I make up my own mind and don’t give credit to some unknown author who writes a book that you worship.
Look up the definition of conservative and I feel that your idol’s name won’t be there.
You sound like you've never heard of William F. Buckley, but he is the founder of the National Review and was its editor until a few years ago. He is now against the Iraq War. Is he "pretending to be a conservative too"?
You are not a conservative; you are a NeoCon. The NeoCons are a bunch of whack jobs that got thrown out of the Democratic party in the 1970s.
Absurd.
Excuse me, I’m a Neoconservative for wanting to have a strong military defense. That’s absurd. I am for less government not more government. I would advise you to read The Enemy at Home with an open mind. Why do Paleocons have so intolerance to other thinking inside the Conservative Movement? Also, why do Paleocons, like yourself, like taking cheap shots at differing opinion, like myself? In case you are wondering, I am a great admirer of the late great Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley, Jr. So what do you think?
All the best,
Jonathan
You've got to be consistent. NeoCons are, I guess, consistent -- after all, most of them favor the welfare state (see the Kristols, Podhoretz, Wolfowitz, and many others).
Basically, the government is only good in exercising force and "breaking things". Hence, our beautifully-executed initial invasion of Iraq. But when it came to reconstruction, occupation, and police action, the Government is totally incompetent, just like it is within our shores.
At a minimum, any true conservative would limit overseas action to purely offensive operations and avoid occupations and nation-building.
Claiming someone founded conservatism is akin to saying, someone invented capitalism.
I see your point, but I would like to win in Iraq now that we are there. I know it wasn’t a conservative idea to intervene, and I don’t call President George W. Bush a conservative except on taxes. He still hasn’t lowered them completely enough. I don’t support talking with our sworn enemies, and I wish to God that Michael Savage wouldn’t take cheap shots at Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I respect all three and everybody in talk radio, even though my past posts say otherwise about Michael Savage, I’ve changed. I respect everybody on FreeRepublic.com, too.
All the best,
Jonathan
It depends what your definition of capitalism is. Karl Marx coined the term capitalism, and many on the Left refer to Capitalism NOT as the free market, but as the government-imposed system of controls that benefit the wealthy, such as inflation, corporate welfare, and intellectual property laws. That’s why 19th century anarchists called themselves socialists.
As far as winning in Iraq goes, I would like to win too. But I do not believe it is possible. Having personally been involved in the counter-IED (C-IED) effort while I was over there, I can confidently say that the IED war is unwinnable, particularly the EFP "sub-war". Political peace is only possible if the violence dies down; the violence will die down only if we defeat/counter/neutralize insurgent IED operations; insurgent IED operations can only be neutralized through the political process.
See the problem?
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.