Your Next President -- God Willing

[SicEmBaylor]

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.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is an apples vs. oranges issue. The Soviet threat was a clear and present danger to the actual physical territory of the United States. Everyone absolutely agrees with that -- it truly was a direct military threat to the territorial integrity of the nation. There's no question there. The other examples you gave is interventionist nation-building bull**** that has contributed to less security for the United States rather than more.

I don't know if Trotsky or any Marxist did anything similar, but would be quite surprised if they did.

You absolutely and quite clearly didn't understand a single word I said. Not a single word. I never said that neoconservatives had the exact same individual policies as Marxists -- I said that former Trotskyites adapted their principles to conservatism -- in other words, they adopted the same *tactics* used for a different purpose. Marxists believe in a post-nationalist ideology that is firmly rooted in the need to spread Marxism internationally (how and when is one of the differing characteristics between different types of communism) -- iow, their aim is to spark a revolt of the proletariat globally. When these former Marxists moved from the left to the right, they brought with them that tactic of spreading ideology globally; however, instead of spreading communism, they spread American democracy.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

"You absolutely and quite clearly didn't understand a single word I saidNot a single word. I never said that neoconservatives had the exact same individual policies as Marxists -- I said that former Trotskyites adapted their principles to conservatism -- in other words, they adopted the same *tactics* used for a different purpose. Marxists believe in a post-nationalist ideology that is firmly rooted in the need to spread Marxism internationally (how and when is one of the differing characteristics between different types of communism) -- iow, their aim is to spark a revolt of the proletariat globally.

When these former Marxists moved from the left to the right( you will want/need to explain how that happened, who they were and why they did it),

... they brought with them that tactic of spreading ideology globally; however, instead of spreading communism, they spread American democracy."-Sicem


I love the way you talk down to me. It makes you feel functional and noble.

[SicEmBaylor]

"You absolutely and quite clearly didn't understand a single word I saidNot a single word. I never said that neoconservatives had the exact same individual policies as Marxists -- I said that former Trotskyites adapted their principles to conservatism -- in other words, they adopted the same *tactics* used for a different purpose. Marxists believe in a post-nationalist ideology that is firmly rooted in the need to spread Marxism internationally (how and when is one of the differing characteristics between different types of communism) -- iow, their aim is to spark a revolt of the proletariat globally.

When these former Marxists moved from the left to the right( you will want/need to explain how that happened, who they were and why they did it),

... they brought with them that tactic of spreading ideology globally; however, instead of spreading communism, they spread American democracy."-Sicem


I love the way you talk down to me. It makes you feel functional and noble.

No, I do it because you frustrate the absolute bejesus out of me. If I seem condescending then it's because we've had these conversations a billion times over the years, and you continue to ask the exact same questions and make the exact same statements having learned absolutely nothing in the process or to the contrary. Labeling me a libertarian-isolationist is a really good example of that when I'm neither and have explained why I'm neither ad-nauseam.

you will want/need to explain how that happened, who they were and why they did it

This is another example of why I get so put out with you. Instead of educating yourself with this wonderful wonderful invention called 'Google', you are perfectly content to learn nothing and make no attempt to remedy that situation.

1)Not every neoconservative is a former communist from the 60's -- they influenced and created the neoconservative movement, but clearly the movement has grown well beyond them. W. Bush, despite being a neocon, was quite clearly never a communist.
2)A couple of good examples of the founders of the movement are: Irving and Bill Kristol as well as David Horowitz. I had a chance to get to know David Horowitz a little over the course of a couple of days, and I was able to talk about his progression from the far left to the right. He even used to be an attorney for the Black Panthers...
3)I don't know why each of them moved from the left-right or their specific motives -- you'd have to ask them or, better yet, read their books. General disillusionment is probably a recurring them in all of their motivations.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You just think I'm calling you Libertarian. I understand what you believe, and I do think your beliefs re use of the American military internationally is like the Libertarians. With both of you, its seems to be more important than views on abuse of government power with regard to domestic concerns.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

W clearly did far too many things that were neither conservative nor acceptable to any form of modern American conservative. Of course he did some things that were not objectionable, which makes him a far better president than Bear, or than Hillry or Warren would be.(or any other Democrat that I have ever seen since Zell Miller)

[SicEmBaylor]

You just think I'm calling you Libertarian.

Yes, I think that because you continue to call me a libertarian; although, your capitalization of libertarian makes me think you also believe I'm an actual member of the Libertarian Party instead of just a small (l) libertarian. The fact that I'm a Republican precinct chairman and a delegate to the state Republican convention notwithstanding, I suppose...

I understand what you believe

No, you really clearly don't. I think if you remain oblivious to the existence of neoconservatism then Jeffersonian/southern agrarian paleoconservatism is really going to throw you for one hell of a loop.

I do think your beliefs re use of the American military internationally is like the Libertarians.

My beliefs are rooted in classical-conservatism which happen to, largely, overlap libertarian foreign policy principles.

With both of you, its seems to be more important than views on abuse of government power with regard to domestic concerns.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. You think libertarians don't spend 90% of their time screaming about abuse of power by both Republicans and Democrats? Jesus Christ, the foreign policy element of libertarianism is relatively small compared to their focus on domestic issues. You really have no damned clue, sir. I can only try explaining things so much before it becomes clear a person is incapable of figuring anything out. I've met some bullheaded people in my lifetime, but you really take the cake. Most of my replies aren't really for you. If they were, I'd have stopped responding to you years ago. I respond so that other people better understand who I am, what I believe, and how it relates to different points of view out there.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Most of the passionate complaints from the Libertarians I've read here, as well as complaints from you, are centered on shortcomings of republicans in office, rather than the complete anti-American behavior of most all of the democrats that keep getting elected.

[SicEmBaylor]

Most of the passionate complaints from the Libertarians I've read here,

I don't know of any libertarians around here. I've never read anything from a libertarian on SF.

...as well as complaints from you, are centered on shortcomings of republicans in office, rather than the complete anti-American behavior of most all of the democrats that keep getting elected.

Well, you're damned right I'm more concerned about the shortcomings of Republicans. The Republican Party does not stand for the values that it purports to stand for. That isn't a shortcoming -- that's a complete lapse in principle. I cannot and will not support Republicans that are not committed to increasing individual/civil liberties and reducing the size and scope of government. Violating our civil liberties slightly less and expanding government slightly slower than the other side is unworthy of my support, unworthy of the Republican Party, and unworthy of our country.

There are millions of parrots out there who sit around screaming, "Obummer is a socialist!" So the **** what? What does adding my voice to that chorus solve? I can't do a damned thing about liberal wolves who walk around dressed as wolves. I can, hopefully, help contribute to stopping Republican wolves dressed in sheep's clothing. Republicans who are statists and contribute to less liberty and bigger government are the bigger problem for me than progressives.

Whether a Republican takes away more of my freedom or a Democrat does the same matters absolutely not to me. What you fail to understand, what you've never understood, is that the only way to truly defeat liberalism is by ensuring its opposition offers a true alternative and not a watered down version of the same.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

voting for someone who has a real chance of getting the effing democrats out of government, and at least having a possibility of turning the country around means, in 2016, voting for the republican nominee. I hope he/she is one of the better people that are running, but even the dogs such as McCain and Cristy)sp?), and the semi-good ones like Romney, are better than the authoritarian socialists and fascists/crony capitalists from the D.

[Sooner8th]

voting for someone who has a real chance of getting the effing democrats out of government, and at least having a possibility of turning the country around means, in 2016, voting for the republican nominee. I hope he/she is one of the better people that are running, but even the dogs such as McCain and Cristy)sp?), and the semi-good ones like Romney, are better than the authoritarian socialists and fascists/crony capitalists from the D.

The "possibility of turning the country around means, in 2016"? We democrats did turn the country around, they only thing republicans did was fight us at every turn making it more difficult and complaining constantly. I see you have already made you mind up that you are "voting for the republican nominee", even though you have no idea who he is. What happened to voting for the person and not the party?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

fuque ewe, Ghengis!

[Sooner8th]

fuque ewe, Ghengis!

Brilliant insightful comeback. Just show how indoctrinated you are as well as your hypocrisy and you wonder why I call conservatives/republicans lemmings..................

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Brilliant insightful comeback. Just show how indoctrinated you are as well as your hypocrisy and you wonder why I call conservatives/republicans lemmings..................

Fidel, I've given you logic and you remain with your head in the sand. if you want to bury America, you are properly disposed to do so.

[Sooner8th]

Fidel, I've given you logic and you remain with your head in the sand. if you want to bury America, you are properly disposed to do so.

Tell me - which party took a surplus and turned it into the largest deficits in our history. Tell me - which party caused the great recession. Tell me - which party got us into Iraq. Now tell me - what have the dems done that is more harmful to America than that.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

see #53

[Sooner8th]

see #53

It's a simple question, but I understand why you don't want to answer it.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

He's just a shill for the Koch Brothers.


5-0

soros is WAY more worse than the Koch brothers.

[Sooner8th]

soros is WAY more worse than the Koch brothers.

Exactly how? Does Soros have an alec? Does he have a amreicans for prosperity? A C of C? Has soros pushed through the elimination of HIS taxes then raising everyone's else when the budget goes from a surplus to a deficit? Show me where a democratic state budget official sent the proposed budget to the state americans for prosperity before anyone else saw it like they did here in kansas.

[Sooner in Tampa]

^^^^^^^^^ Troll ^^^^^^^^^^^

Lying, stinking, no paragraph writing, worthless POS troll. Proven liar. Copy and paste plagiarist thief. Lowlife, ignorant scum.

[Sooner8th]

^^^^^^^^^ Troll ^^^^^^^^^^^ Lying, stinking, no paragraph writing, worthless POS troll. Proven liar. Copy and paste plagiarist thief. Lowlife, ignorant scum.

tyler durden loser piece of sh!t