So soon we forget the mess The Shrub left this country in.
5-0
So soon we forget the mess The Shrub left this country in.
5-0
BOY HOWDY !!!!
Aw, Ann Richards, bless her heart! The real issue is that the messOriginally Posted by hawaii 5-0
he created CAN'T be fixed any time soon. Who knows how long we'll be stuck in
Southwest Asia and the Middle East? IDM how hard the current admin tries, no
way out any time soon, never mind the next admin...Pub or Dem! And that's only
a small part...!
So if he's an amnesty advocate are you going to dump him?
Nope.
Expound please.
OleVet Posse Instigator
heh
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
For a guy that's against any immigration, that's quite a bit to overlook.
I think to arrive at some kind of conclusion as to exactly where SicEm is coming from politically, from what I can tell whoever is the biggest isolationist (I know one when I see one, my son is one) then that is the candidate of choice for him. No need to get into the other issues confronting us, just stay out of the rest of the worlds problems, keep all of our focus here, and all will be good.
I can agree with him on some of that to a degree. Obviously we should have exercised a lot more discretion in many of our world activities and interventions, but ignoring the world's problems will not go away by just ignoring them. Sounds good, but hardly realistic. The first thing it does is abandons your allies. And after BHO's reign of error and appeasement, we need every one of them. Then it assumes that we can adequately guard our shores from any attacks. With open borders and Iran developing ICBM's along with North Korea and now Russia, can you guarantee we will be safe? It is a silly assumption with predictably deadly consequences.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-----Winston Churchill
Tell us exactly what you want the president to do. The last president you voted for twice that won, refused to negotiate with iran and nk, leaving them alone to work on the very weapons you are now worried about. Obama hasn't blundered us into a war and couldn't win one against a bunch of rock throwers. Never-mind he blew off getting the guy who actually killed 3,000+ Americans on OUR soil. did you forget the part about your boy ignoring warnings from our intelligence about bin lauden determined to attack the US? Tell us all again who had the "reign of error and appeasement". Anyone who voted for dubya does not have the standing to complain about obama.
Not only Sicem, but most of those who say they are Libertarians. The isolationism appears to be their most important consideration in politics. It is the reason why so many Libertanians are quicker to attack conservatives(neo-cons)than they are socialists or fascists(D's and RINOS)
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Jesus Christ. I'm not a Libertarian and there is no such thing as an isolationist in the United States. The fact that you can't tell the difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionist is a fact that I am no longer going to try to remedy.
And not all conservatives are neoconservatives. I have literally explained this to you hundreds of times. Hundreds. I am a conservative, and I am NOT a neoconservative. I am NOT a libertarian. I've never been a libertarian. I've never said I was a libertarian. There are different types of conservatives just as there are different types of communists -- just as there are different types of liberals. I mention neoconservatives because their view of conservatism has been dominant since the Bush administration. They offer a vision of conservatism absolutely incompatible with my own.
The fact that you're so quick to defend a philosophy of conservatism rooted in Trotskyism is astonishing to me.
Last edited by SicEmBaylor; 3/1/2015 at 04:35 PM.
There is no such thing as an isolationist in the United States. I'm less isolationist than you are -- I promise you that. There is a huge difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. I am a non-interventionist, and I have never heard of a single serious individual in this country who advocates isolationism. North Korea is an isolationist state. Japan was an isolationist state.
Where do I come from politically? I'm a paleoconservative in old Jeffersonian/southern agrarian mold. I ally myself with libertarians often out of political necessity due to the fact they offer one of the only viable alternatives to neoconservatism.
Please learn your political terms before you accuse me of being this or that.
Last edited by SicEmBaylor; 3/1/2015 at 04:36 PM.
Now, as for Rand Paul, the man is absolutely opposed to amnesty. I don't know where this nonsense started that he isn't because all of his actions and statements in the Senate are to the contrary. My guess is that it's simply popularized ignorance and misinformed assumptions. In any case, the very reason that I oppose all immigration (legal or otherwise) is the very reason I wouldn't discount a candidate simply because he's a little more liberal than I am on immigration -- *everyone* is more progressive than I am on immigration. The only thing that would cause me to write a candidate off due to his or her stance on immigration is a position in line with Jeb Bush or Obama -- full amnesty + liberal border security.
Let us hear all about this, senor. Also, pls explain the salient points of neoconservatism, especially as practiced or espoused by Bush.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
I'm really hesitant to sit here and explain this to you since I've written out damned near a thesis on the subject in the past when you've asked that same damned question. At this point, it's easier for me to beg you to just walk yourself over to Google -- do a basic Google search -- and learn to, you know, educate yourself just a little bit. Since I have no faith in your ability to accomplish the latter....
Neoconservatism is a conservative movement founded by former radical communists (Trotskyites, specifically) who moved, ideologically speaking, from communism to "conservatism" as the 60s gave way to the 70s and 80s. Neoconservatism is a cross-blend of traditional conservatism using the traditional means and even, at times, language of international Marxism. For example, non-interventionism in foreign affairs was a hallmark of traditional conservatism. Mind you non-interventionism is NOT the same as isolationism. Neoconservatives abandoned traditional conservatism non-interventionism in favor of liberal/Wilsonian foreign policy principles of spreading American-style Democracy abroad in a very robust and "forward leaning" way. International actions like promoting regime change and nation-building were, prior to neoconservatism, more liberal/progressive principles. This is why I emphasize how little difference there is between the two parties in foreign affairs -- they are philosophically the same. The only difference between the two is how each sides implements that policy.
On domestic affairs, neoconservatives are more post-Constitutionalists. They accept the power of the Federal government to achieve so-called "conservative" ends using the means of the power of government -- especially the Federal government -- even when exercising that power goes above and beyond Constitutional limits on that power. "No Child Left Behind" is a perfect example. Conservatives may agree that robust standards in school are necessary; however, whereas most legitimate conservatives would abolish the Department of Education, neoconservatives used the Department of Education and Federal government to implement Federal education standards which go well above and beyond what traditional conservatives would approve of.
-------------
The examples go on and on, but it isn't just a silly academic exercise to differentiate between types of conservatives. The differences between traditional/paleoconservatives and neoconservatives is rather extreme and those difference have a profound impact on the shape of conservatism going forward, the shape of our government, and whether we are going to continue accepting an unconstitutional role for the Federal government.
"On domestic affairs, neoconservatives are more post-Constitutionalists. They accept the power of the Federal government to achieve so-called "conservative" ends using the means of the power of government -- especially the Federal government -- even when exercising that power goes above and beyond Constitutional limits on that power. "No Child Left Behind" is a perfect example. Conservatives may agree that robust standards in school are necessary; however, whereas most legitimate conservatives would abolish the Department of Education, neoconservatives used the Department of Education and Federal government to implement Federal education standards which go well above and beyond what traditional conservatives would approve of." -Sicem
Most who refer to themselves as modern day American conservatives, myself included, do not approve of having federal control and mandadtory guidelines on education, nor approve of having a federal Department of Education.
It doesn't seem like you realize that a lot of people didn't like nor go along with a lot of the things W did, but of course most of the same people don't approve of practically anything that Bear does. Obama is out to fundamentally change the nation, and the most important thing one's vote should do is knock the democrats out of power.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
1)This isn't about what the grassroots believe. Nobody in the grassroots is sitting around figuring out the nuances of political philosophy to determine where or what they consider themselves to be. They just consider themselves to be 'conservatives.' This is about Federal policy makers and the movers of the 'conservaitve' movement from the top-bottom not the bottom-top.
2)This isn't about comparing or contrasting what the Democrats are doing. You are so caught up in black/white us/them conservative/liberal Republican/Democrat that you think your side is right so long as it isn't "left." That's asinine, insane, and a recipe for absolute disaster going forward. You need to ensure you're in the right before you give a **** what the other side is doing and
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rati/?page=allRand Paul throws weight behind immigration reform effort
I'm sure articles like this probably confuse people on Rand's anti amnesty position. Of course Rand isn't helping matters by teaming with the likes of Grover Norquist and pro immigration reform groups to contact congressmen about the need for immigration for immigration reform.
I hope Rand does pursue an anti amnesty goal...we'll see.
That article is precisely consistent with what I said. Paul is and remains opposed to amnesty. Favoring immigration reform in very broad terms is absolutely not the same as favoring amnesty+decreased border security. Technically speaking, I myself favor immigration reform. Reform means very different things to different people, and it's rather obvious that Paul was attempting to bridge the gap.
A principal role of the national government is to protect its citizens, and therefore justified in intervening when there are legitimate threats that can be thwarted, such as protecting the flow of oil, to keep from economic chaos, as was the case in Kuwait and Iraq, and in the case of direct military threats, as was done by Kennedy(the last democrat president that wasn't totally phukced) in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I don't know if Trotsky or any Marxist did anything similar, but would be quite surprised if they did.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Posting Permissions
