ljs Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 I only read these threads for entertainment, you guys are funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 I would say no where near Ron Paul imo as many of us consider him to be a loon. One major reason why the GOP has failed. Neo-cons have ruined a once great party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 It is stupid. History has shown that the next congressional elections will return the GOP to power, and the country, as a whole is becoming more conservative. No it hasn't. All history has shown that the party in power usually loses seats in the midterm elections. The democrats had 40 years of uninterrupted rule in the House. What 2010 will show is that the incumbents in power will lose seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Still Bush has proved that you can win in this country by pushing to the right and empowering your base. You can win elections and maintain a 28-30% approval rating. Say what? If Bush had those approval ratings in 2004, he would've lost reelection. His numbers really didn't go south until 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Thats part of being in the minorityThis time in 2001 nobody had a clue who Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle were, save for the fact they had press conferences with mufflers You are too young, but people remember who Dick Gephardt was. He had some great commercials when he ran for president in 1988. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Actually, Nancy P. was right. In her perspective being the Democratic Speaker of the House; the democrats did do well this year. The Dems gained one seat in the House. 2010 will be deadly to alot of incumbents. Will it be deadly enough to switch control? We will have to wait and see. Frankly, those blue dog dems that don't tow the line will probably face primary challenges and lose. In the fall, the race will depend on the economy and the impact of healthcare and cap and trade if both are passed. I think alot of republicans need to be swept out also. They are still plenty of them around from the Bush years and those Repubs need to be swept out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 5, 2009 Author Share Posted November 5, 2009 you can say that again. What's funny is that people are telling the Republicans what they want and they're not getting it. A common sense, non-loony, traditional conservative. Not quite Ron Paul, but certainly not Palin. I think if they can find someone in between those two (more towards Ron Paul I think), that would make many a Republican happy. A modern Thomas Jefferson if you will. Jefferson was a liberal. Classic Liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 5, 2009 Author Share Posted November 5, 2009 Actually, Nancy P. was right. In her perspective being the Democratic Speaker of the House; the democrats did do well this year. The Dems gained one seat in the House. Two seats. 2010 will be deadly to alot of incumbents. Will it be deadly enough to switch control? We will have to wait and see. Frankly, those blue dog dems that don't tow the line will probably face primary challenges and lose. That's exactly correct. Traditionally they should loose seats, but not necessarily control. I think alot of republicans need to be swept out also. They are still plenty of them around from the Bush years and those Repubs need to be swept out. Yes they are and most of them are in leadership. But I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinSkin Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 One major reason why the GOP has failed. Neo-cons have ruined a once great party. I never quite understood the exact definition of neo-con, so for those interested, I went searching. Here are four individuals partial definitions. Clicking the link will let you see their expanded definitions (neo-con's on the Iraq war and other issues). http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_196286.html Rich Lowry: Historically, 30 years ago it meant a former liberal who became a conservative. The cliche was because "they were mugged by reality," but it was because they saw the empirical failures of liberal welfare, state and foreign policies, and they were therefore less ideological than other conservatives and brought much more of a social science background to their argumentation. They were associated with Irving Kristol's journal, the Public Interest, that had a lot of social-science pieces poking empirical holes in liberal theory. These people were former liberals, former Democrats, and in some cases former communists, but gradually over 30 years they really merged into the conservative mainstream, and the difference was very difficult to tell. cont... Paul Weyrich: They are mostly ex-liberals, by and large out of the intellectual community. These are people who came to the realization that modern liberalism was not the kind of liberalism that they had subscribed to. They are a fairly small group of people, both in and out of government. Those who are out of government are in either the media or academia. They are influential because they promote each other. They are very skilled at that. cont.... Paul Gigot: I think of neoconservatism as having a very specific meaning related to history. That is, the neoconservatives were people who in the 1970s were former liberals, in some cases socialists, who moved right in reaction to the left's shift on cultural mores, personal responsibility and foreign policy. So I think the term "neoconservative" has that narrow meaning of that historical period. I think of them as the Podhoretzes and the Kristols and others. I don't think "neoconservative" means much anymore. I don't know what it means now or who they're referring to. cont... George Will: Oh gosh, that's not simple. Neoconservatives are persons who in domestic policy often were former Democrats who felt that conservatives had erred in not accepting the post-New Deal role of the central government. They were in their early incarnation focusing on domestic policy and were distinguishing themselves from Goldwater conservatives. Also in domestic policies, however, as the '60s unfolded into the '70s and '80s, they led the critique of overreaching in domestic social engineering, saying that we accept the post-New Deal role of the central government, but the accumulated powers thereof are being wielded in a way too confident and optimistic and hubristic, if you will. cont... You use the term quite frequently Snyder. Do agree with any one definition listed here, or do you have your own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 5, 2009 Author Share Posted November 5, 2009 Historically, 30 years ago it meant a former liberal who became a conservative. Yeah, Neocons are liberals.... Yeah that's the ticket... That will sell... I love how all evils are traced to the left, if you are on the far right.... Paul Wolfowitz in highschool, before he could vote, supported a Democrat, thus he's really a former liberal and his bloodlines are not pure.... The neocons seed of evil was planted in the GOP by the left! If they were true conservatives, they wouldn't have gone wrong.... Neocon's supported pre-emptive attack on Iraq, not because of vital American Interests, but because they could...... Parrellel, Wilson drew us into WWI because he believed it to be the right move ( and because J.P. Morgan had loaned the Brits about a billion dollars)... Thus we can claim Wilson as the first neocon and tie all this neocon mess philisophically around the necks of Democrats... Here is a definition of Neocons. A radical group of Conservatives who expressed a policy of pre-emptive war in violation of hundreds of years of precident, and who subsequently hijacked the heart and soul of the Republican party to implement their misguided scheme. They used crime, intimidation, and lies to coerse people on the right who should have known better. Ultimately they lost favor because they were so incompetent they failed and the country held them and the GOP responsible in a dramatic reordering episode resulting in the first black elected President of the United States.. It makes my head hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Jefferson was a liberal. Classic Liberal. There is a very big difference between classical liberalism (represented by a magazine like the Economist, basically libertarian), and liberalism (represented by Mother Jones). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 5, 2009 Author Share Posted November 5, 2009 Does anybody else hear Jew when these yahoo's are saying former liberals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 5, 2009 Author Share Posted November 5, 2009 There is a very big difference between classical liberalism (represented by a magazine like the Economist, basically libertarian), and liberalism (represented by Mother Jones). Jefferson was a revolutionary who created an entirely new form of government. You can't get much more liberal than that. Jefferson was the father of American liberal ideology, just like Alexander Hamilton was the father on the Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Jefferson was a revolutionary who created an entirely new form of government. You can't get much more liberal than that. Jefferson was the father of American liberal ideology, just like Alexander Hamilton was the father on the Right. Whether or not you're right, none of this has anything to do with what I wrote, which is that there is a big difference between classical liberalism and liberalism. If you want to peg Jefferson as a liberal, then he is not a classical liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 I never quite understood the exact definition of neo-con, so for those interested, I went searching. Here are four individuals partial definitions. Clicking the link will let you see their expanded definitions (neo-con's on the Iraq war and other issues).http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_196286.html Rich Lowry: Historically, 30 years ago it meant a former liberal who became a conservative. The cliche was because "they were mugged by reality," but it was because they saw the empirical failures of liberal welfare, state and foreign policies, and they were therefore less ideological than other conservatives and brought much more of a social science background to their argumentation. They were associated with Irving Kristol's journal, the Public Interest, that had a lot of social-science pieces poking empirical holes in liberal theory. These people were former liberals, former Democrats, and in some cases former communists, but gradually over 30 years they really merged into the conservative mainstream, and the difference was very difficult to tell. cont... Paul Weyrich: They are mostly ex-liberals, by and large out of the intellectual community. These are people who came to the realization that modern liberalism was not the kind of liberalism that they had subscribed to. They are a fairly small group of people, both in and out of government. Those who are out of government are in either the media or academia. They are influential because they promote each other. They are very skilled at that. cont.... Paul Gigot: I think of neoconservatism as having a very specific meaning related to history. That is, the neoconservatives were people who in the 1970s were former liberals, in some cases socialists, who moved right in reaction to the left's shift on cultural mores, personal responsibility and foreign policy. So I think the term "neoconservative" has that narrow meaning of that historical period. I think of them as the Podhoretzes and the Kristols and others. I don't think "neoconservative" means much anymore. I don't know what it means now or who they're referring to. cont... George Will: Oh gosh, that's not simple. Neoconservatives are persons who in domestic policy often were former Democrats who felt that conservatives had erred in not accepting the post-New Deal role of the central government. They were in their early incarnation focusing on domestic policy and were distinguishing themselves from Goldwater conservatives. Also in domestic policies, however, as the '60s unfolded into the '70s and '80s, they led the critique of overreaching in domestic social engineering, saying that we accept the post-New Deal role of the central government, but the accumulated powers thereof are being wielded in a way too confident and optimistic and hubristic, if you will. cont... Gee what a shcoker. You asked four well-known conservative pundits what a neo-con is, and they all answer: "I dunno but it's not me or anyone like me." :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 You use the term quite frequently Snyder. Do agree with any one definition listed here, or do you have your own? I know there are many definitions of neo-con out there noow days, but I tend to use the term to fit any one who speaks as though, and thinks of themselves as, a conservtaive when they dont follow conservative principles in practice. Also, most neo-cons are empire building, war mongerers who may preach less spending and less government while increasing spending and government in areas they deem appropriate. maybe I should call them faux-cons instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Whether or not you're right, none of this has anything to do with what I wrote, which is that there is a big difference between classical liberalism and liberalism. If you want to peg Jefferson as a liberal, then he is not a classical liberal. I don't know, tb. I consider Thomas Jefferson a liberal. I consider myself a liberal. Therefore, Thomas Jefferson is a classically modern liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinSkin Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Jefferson was a revolutionary who created an entirely new form of government. You can't get much more liberal than that. Jefferson was the father of American liberal ideology, just like Alexander Hamilton was the father on the Right. Jefferson a liberal?....hmmm, maybe it wasn't him who quoted my sig after all....Maybe it was George Jefferson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 They are smiling because their two party system is still well entrenched.Being in Office for 40+ years many will be in power again, and again and again even when they shouldn't be. That's about the truth. I really wish the GOP would split in to a social/neocon section and a more traditional small gov. branch. Not to weaken it so much but to offer some level of choice to voters. The Democrats should probably splinter as well in to three or so groups. This two party stuff is really not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Jefferson a liberal?....hmmm, maybe it wasn't him who quoted my sig after all....Maybe it was George Jefferson. This just proves that despite what you think you believe at your core and in your heart, you support liberals. This was a nice warm and fuzzy moment. Either that or you just really don't understand what liberals are or have stood for which would be far less warm and fuzzy... kind of cool and sharp in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 5, 2009 Author Share Posted November 5, 2009 Whether or not you're right, none of this has anything to do with what I wrote, which is that there is a big difference between classical liberalism and liberalism. If you want to peg Jefferson as a liberal, then he is not a classical liberal. I missed your point then. Here is the definition which I found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism Jefferson was both a liberal and a classical liberal. His name is in the definition of Classical liberal from Wikipedia. Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: "...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."[26] For classical liberalism, rights are of a negative nature—rights that require that other individuals (and governments) refrain from interfering with individual liberty, whereas social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.[27] Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are "hostile to the welfare state."[12] They do not have an interest in material equality but only in "equality before the law."[28] Likewise the definition of a liberal is somebody who looks for new solutions rather than old solutions. Just like the definition of a conservative is somebody who looks to the passed for solutions (what's worked before) rather than trying something new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinSkin Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 This just proves that despite what you think you believe at your core and in your heart, you support liberals. This was a nice warm and fuzzy moment. Either that or you just really don't understand what liberals are or have stood for which would be far less warm and fuzzy... kind of cool and sharp in fact. I've been outed. I can't hold it in anymore.....I LOOOOOVES ME SOME OBAMA!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Jefferson a liberal?....hmmm, maybe it wasn't him who quoted my sig after all....Maybe it was George Jefferson.:secret: Your quote is not from Thomas Jefferson. It is from Gerald Ford.http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Government_big_enough_to_supply_you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 5, 2009 Author Share Posted November 5, 2009 Also, most neo-cons are empire building, war mongerers who may preach less spending and less government while increasing spending and government in areas they deem appropriate. Whoops, you just described Ronald Reagan.... Care to try again? I think you need to get away from the claim that these guys weren't "real" conservatives, or "real" republicans. They were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Whoops, you just described Ronald Reagan.... Care to try again?I think you need to get away from the claim that these guys weren't "real" conservatives, or "real" republicans. They were. No, why would I care to try again? I actually do think Reagan erred and swung..."neo-con" in many things he did. you really should try to understand whom you are speaking with if you think that referencing reagan will bother me even a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.