Reply With Quote
So you see 4 pictures and make the assumption that all conservatives and Republicans are like the people with the signs in the pictures posted above?
Political Correctness these days is more of a cloak for assholes to excuse their behavior than anything else.
Where the were you during the Democratic Primaries? Obama vs. Hillary doesn't ring a bell? Have you participated in any of the discussion on this board for the past, what, 4 years? If you can find evidence of a Conservative civil war on this board prior to November of 2006, bring it out.
Meanwhile, Obama's been in office for 3 ing months and we already have some issues. Granted, we're not going ape and calling for his head, but then again the mere thought of Obama in the Oval Office doesn't drive us bat insane the way it does some of you guys.
...but these guys are just being "politically incorrect" right?
So you see 4 pictures and make the assumption that all conservatives and Republicans are like the people with the signs in the pictures posted above?
He (and Hannity) have consistently defended the decision to premptively invade Iraq even after it was undeniable that there was no threat to the US from Iraq on the basis of spreading freedom and democracy. I'm sure you'll find some way to try and argue but anyone who supports the idea that america must spread freedom with bombs and military force cannot be a libertarian. Now if he instead had taken the position that, although it was a mistake to invade, this country had the responsibilty of correcting the mistake by leaving Iraq in a stable state (as opposed to the cut & run strategy offered up by the dems at the time) then maybe I would believe he might be a libertarian. I've never heard him take that postion.
I picked two extreme positions from the libertarian party and you are defending them. So I think you answered your own question.
To be honest, I don't know if he ever said "I am a Reagan conservative". He did spend alot of time referencing & quoting Reagan. Which in my opinion is the same thing. Arguable I suppose.
I know you're not. Depending on the thread I generally view you as either a neocon or just a ish talk radio listener with no real sense of your own ideology. More and more I'm thinking it's the latter. When Obama makes some cuts to the Dept. of Homeland Security I'm pretty sure you'll be against them since I know Bortz, Hannity etc. will be railing about it. I on the other hand (although I listen to conservative radio) will be thinking good but it would be better if he just cut the Dept. of Homeland Security and Dept. of Energy and Dept. of Education...all unnecessary.
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 04-19-2009 at 12:37 AM.
There's a healthy variety of libertarianisms out there, but they aren't very well known yet. Maybe the vogue of political independence among erstwhile partisans will lead them to actually read the libertarianism they putatively expouse, but I doubt it. Instead it will be adopted as an off the rack rebranding of a myth they already believe in. Libertarianism is a word that accompanies navel-gazing, like liberalism and conservatism.
The neocons started out as anti-communist libs who voted for Nixon because their own party got *corrupted* by the anti-war left.
On Reagan, I part with you. The Reagan Administration represents the triumph of neocon policy in the GOP: military keynesianism (deficit spending) plus wars of democratic or humanitarian intervention. Reagan represents the proximate triumph of Cold War liberalism in national politics, and is the beginning of traditional conservatisms' long walk in the wilderness IMO.
What makes you think they ever left?
Seriously, Afghanistan?
Neocons could it up for Obama, too.
As for the possible emergence of third parties, without a regional base, political parties can't really thrive.
The last electorally significant third-party Presidential candidate was George Wallace.
Well, whether or not we disagree depends on if you're saying Reagan was a neocon or if your saying neocons used the success of Reagan to take over the GOP. Reagan rejected detente and used the military buildup to put pressure on the soviets, not to engage them militarily. Yes he had neocons in his administration but he rejected their advice much like Bush treated Colin Powell. Here's a nice little article on Reagan and Neocons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/op...e-neocons.html
Seriously, why does the left care so much about what Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck have to say?
Hannity is a nut. I doubt that he really thinks the Hannah Montana movie was good. You should have heard him talk about Miley Cirus. It was like the guy was ing in his pants about her. Hannity is probably the most extreme out of that bunch. I would put Rush second, then Beck, and O'Reilly last. O'Reilly isn't extreme as people think he is.
Hannity is just a for whoever is paying him or helping him get paid.
Billy Ray Cyrus is doing his freedom concerts... Hannah is his daughter.
GM is one of his major sponsors... so he's against all bailouts... but I've heard him say countless times that all GM needs is a "bridge loan"
Impressive post!
You're quite right right to stress that Reagan himself wasn't a neocon, but he did hold the door open for them.
So many "libertarians" in the GOP, yet when one runs for the presidency only 3 out of a 100 vote for him.
Who and where, please? Bob Barr topped out around 0.40 percent....
I was thinking of the congressman from Lake Jackson.
RP. Three points consistently in 2007.
Yeah, it looks like he did a little better. Still, for a party full of individualists su ious of the scale and scope of the federal government, that wasn't that great, especially considering that he attracted a fair number of non-traditional GOP primary voters.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 04-20-2009 at 06:43 PM.
However you regard the outcome for RP, it's yet more evidence that the current vogue of *libertarianism* is more sloganeering than doctrinal.
Sure. Paul offered as close of an option within the GOP for a 'libertarian' candidate as there ever has been. 5.5%, I believe, was his share of the total popular/caucus vote (1.6% of delegates). Anecdotally, the objection to him was his view of the Iraq invasion and US military strategy, in general. The weird thing is that had it been a, say, President Clinton who ultimately ordered the invasion of Iraq, then the GOP would have resorted to a 'Democrat Wars' mentality and a candidate Paul would have been more acceptable (or cast off in favor of a more acceptable big government 'conservative'). Most of that is my conjecture, but does it not ring true?
Absolutely. It happened in 1999 when we bombed Yugoslavia. Besides McCain, not many Republicans stood up for Clinton, but there was a temporary congruence with the libertarian right. Clinton was denounced for starry eyed internationalism and *nation-building.*
After making a "humbler" foreign policy a selling point, GWB gave us both liberal idealism and nation building with a vengeance.
The conservative faithful blessed that too in 2004.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions