Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/9/2002 8:50:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/9/2002 8:59:23 PM EST by themao]
Eric the Hun, AR15.com's renowed neoconservative, vouches for Rush Limbaugh big time. Now I have never stepped into this debate on this forum until now, and I have nothing agains the Hun or anyone else on this issue. However, some of the things said on that last post by more than a few people sufficiently pissed me off to post this article about Mr. Limbaugh and his band of neoconservative goons at National Review (Goldberg and Buckley), American Spectator and The Weekly Standard (Irving Kristol and Fred Barnes). For all of those that believe Rush is a good conservative, you're wrong, and it pains me to see the same shit said over, and over again, when it's our gun rights and property rights at stake here. The Republicans and Rush Limbaugh are statist to the core, and they're just as bad as the most cold blooded group of democrats out there. [url]http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/08-13-2001/vo17no17_neoconservatism.htm[/url] themao [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 8:51:44 PM EST
Yeah right! Good night nurse! Eric The(Sleepy)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 8:53:41 PM EST
The Pied Pipers of Neoconservatism by John F. McManus With William F. Buckley and Irving Kristol to the fore, neoconservatives are piping a tune that is leading America down the path of internationalism and socialism. This article has been adapted from an address given by Mr. McManus to a meeting of the Robert Welch Club on June 30, 2001, in Appleton, Wisconsin. One of the major moves against freedom in recent years has been the gathering of nations into economic unions. The first of these for the United States was NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. At the time it was proposed, our nation’s greatest trading partner was Canada. Some of us tried to show fellow Americans that something has to be wrong when that long-standing and extremely beneficial relationship with Canada had to be "improved" by establishing 20 commissions armed with stacks and stacks of regulations. Our argument made sense to some, but not with our leaders. There obviously were other reasons for NAFTA. During the period leading up to the vote in Congress regarding NAFTA, Henry Kissinger penned a nationally syndicated article calling for its passage. In his revealing comments, he said that NAFTA "will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group since the end of the Cold War...." Who needs to know any more about NAFTA? But there is more. Kissinger also said that NAFTA amounted to the "first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire western hemisphere." He wrote those words in 1993. NAFTA was approved and it has spurred the flow of jobs and industries to Mexico. Not only that, there are numerous reports of dramatic increases in drug trafficking across the U.S.-Mexican border, courtesy of NAFTA. With NAFTA already working its sinister magic, an expanded economic union, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, is now being proposed, just as Kissinger prophesied in 1993. Of course, economic union is followed by political union with the eventual result being world government. One year after Congress approved NAFTA, it was decided to have the U.S. approve membership in the World Trade Organization (once known as GATT). By then, the chief Republican in the House (he was not yet Speaker) was Newt Gingrich. He testified before the House Ways and Means Committee in June 1994 and noted that Congress had already rejected such a proposal twice previously, once in the 1940s and the other time in the 1950s. Obviously there were pitfalls and these were detected back in that period by a more solid membership in the Congress. In his testimony, Gingrich stated: "[We need] to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of danger." Gingrich also said that the WTO should be compared to the Maastricht treaty under which Western European nations had already surrendered huge portions of their independence.Who needs to know any more about the WTO?
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 8:54:48 PM EST
Now, before you get the impression that Gingrich was an ally, realize that later that very year (1994), Republicans swept the congressional elections and their dominance in both houses of Congress was assured beginning in January 1995. Many of the newly elected members of the House were conservatives, and Gingrich was assured he would be the Speaker. So what did he do? He engineered the holding of the vote on submission to the WTO in a special rump session of Congress in December of 1994 — prior to the new Congress taking office when virtually everyone expected that the new Congress would have voted against the proposal. As a result, the U.S. tied itself to the WTO. To understand what is in store for America if we don’t stop the plotters behind the drive for world government, consider that the European Economic Union has been beefed up and, without changing any of the economic features already in place, is now the political European Union. And the architects of world government have created in Europe the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. These courts have already forced the nations of Western Europe to change some of their laws. Those nations have lost their sovereignty. And the WTO is already interfering with our laws regarding trade. Our nation is being led down Europe’s path. Socialist Conservatives This is a major element of neoconservatism. What then is a neoconservative? Briefly, he is an opponent of Communism but a supporter of socialism and internationalism. Lenin’s once revered partner in crime, Leon Trotsky, was perhaps the first neoconservative, although a case can be made that Karl Marx himself was a neocon. The acknowledged "godfather" of this movement in our nation in recent years is Irving Kristol. In his 1995 book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Kristol announced what it means to him: [We] are conservative, but different in certain respects from the conservatism of the Republican Party. We accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism. So, neocons are for the New Deal — which is socialism. And they despise "isolationism," which means Kristol and his neocon friends are internationalists. In a 1993 article appearing in the Wall Street Journal, Kristol expressed his enthusiasm for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, Medicaid, even cash allowances for unwed mothers. You won’t find a neocon opposing the UN, although he might issue a recommendation merely to reform the world organization. And you certainly won’t find any neocon challenging the growth of big government because they love big government. A major problem in America is that these neocons have taken over the conservative wing of the Republican party. And they have succeeded in doing so to the degree that the word "conservative" is now being applied to individuals and ideas that are, in fact, liberal (in the leftist sense), socialist, and totally undeserving of the conservative label. It pains me when someone describes himself to me as a conservative. It pains me even more when that label is applied to me. I’ve actually adopted a policy of asking that I at least be called a "constitutional conservative." That separates me from the so-called conservatism of most leading Republicans — which has really become neoconservatism.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 8:55:50 PM EST
Neoconservatives even proudly admit their takeover of the word "conservative." In his 1996 book entitled The Essential Neoconservative Reader, editor Mark Gerson jubilantly observed: The neoconservatives have so changed conservatism that what we now identify as conservatism is largely what was once neoconservatism. And in so doing, they have defined the way that vast numbers of Americans view their economy, their polity, and their society. Give neocon Gerson credit for saying very forthrightly what indeed has happened. By designating themselves "conservative," the neocons have led many otherwise conservative Americans to accept what had always been unacceptable. What was once called neoconservatism and viewed suspiciously is now labeled conservatism and is no longer rejected. How this happened can’t be told completely in a short space, but we can provide some helpful insights. Let’s go back to the beginning of this takeover in our nation. Neoconservative Roots In 1927, Leon Trotsky broke with Lenin’s partner Joseph Stalin and was forced into exile a year later. He broke with Leninism because he preferred having mankind choose Marxism rather than having it imposed through the brutality favored by Lenin and Stalin. It’s important to understand that Trotsky wasn’t an opponent of the Marxist program, which is socialism. He was only an opponent of the head cracking brought to the socialist movement by Lenin and continued by Stalin. Since he continued to be a definite challenge to the brutal Soviet leader, Trotsky was murdered by one of Stalin’s agents in Mexico in 1940. Before he was killed, however, he had attracted a substantial following among men who never lost their determination to have socialism and world government control mankind.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 8:56:26 PM EST
In 1995, neocon godfather Kristol candidly stated, "I regard myself to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a single bitter memory." You can see in that statement his willingness to identify with Trotsky. As far back as 1983, he claimed that "a conservative welfare state … is perfectly consistent with the neoconservative perspective." A conservative welfare state? That qualifies as the oxymoron of the decade. Writing in Kristol’s journal, The National Interest, in 1989, fellow neocon Charles Krauthammer called for the integration of Europe, Japan, and the U.S. to create a "super-sovereign" government. He even voiced his desire to see "the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty but of the notion of sovereignty in general." So, it’s safe to say that these people are the enemies of a constitutionally limited government in an independent nation. They are enemies; they are neoconservatives. Add in Midge Decter, Norman Podhoretz, Elliott Abrams, Ben Wattenberg, the magazine Commentary led by Podhoretz, The Weekly Standard led by Irving Kristol’s son William, and many others. The drive toward neoconservatism in America started quite a bit earlier. In 1952, a young "conservative" serving a one-year tour of duty with the CIA wrote an article for The Commonweal, a Catholic weekly. This man wrote: … we have got to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.... And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington — even with Truman at the reins of it all. That was 1952, and the writer of this article was calling for "Big Government for the duration" and "the attendant centralization of power in Washington" in order to oppose Communism. He wanted to fight Communism by adopting Marxism. The element of neoconservatism seeking world government wasn’t in that revealing article. But it would come from this man later. Who do you suppose wrote those words? It was none other than William F. Buckley Jr. It was his initial contribution to neoconservatism, something he slyly advocated at first but has more obviously favored throughout the bulk of his career. He hadn’t yet supported the United Nations, the other half of the neocon agenda, but he would before too long.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 8:57:12 PM EST
Neocon Nexus When Buckley was a student at Yale, the faculty member who influenced him more than any other was Willmoore Kendall. Kendall had been a proud Trotskyite socialist who had studied in England as a Rhodes scholar, served in the OSS during World War II, stayed on when the OSS became the CIA in 1947, and then became a Yale professor. He and Buckley developed a positively eerie relationship. When Buckley sought to avoid military service after finishing Yale during the Korean War, Kendall sent him to James Burnham, another Trotskyite socialist who had also seen service with the OSS and then with the CIA. The plan was to have Buckley avoid serving in the military by having him serve in the CIA instead. These two men, Kendall and Burnham, hugely influenced Buckley and were part of the initial team when the latter launched National Review magazine in 1955. And there were other ex-Communists and CIA veterans who also served among the early members of the NR team. National Review was loaded with Trotskyites and CIA veterans. The critical contribution Buckley made to the neoconservative cause was his taking the conservative movement away from reliance on the Constitution as the standard for Americans and replacing it with an ever-shifting conservatism — as defined by him. Before long Buckley would be excusing others for advocating socialistic programs. Then he began advocating socialistic programs himself. In 1971, he defended continued U.S. membership in the UN when Free China was booted out and Communist China welcomed in. In 1974, he accepted appointment as a delegate to the UN General Assembly and wrote a book about his experiences that dignified the existence of the UN. In 1977, his syndicated column called for ratification of the UN’s Genocide Convention. Coincident with Buckley becoming more obviously a neoconservative, Kristol related how several top leaders of the Wall Street Journal had made their alliance with the neocon movement. WSJ Editor Robert Bartley contacted Kristol as far back as 1972, and Kristol’s articles immediately began appearing in the Journal. In time, the WSJ would become a cheerleader for NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, NATO, and the use of U.S. forces in UN operations. This is the other half of the neocon program, the internationalist half. In 1991, in an article he wrote for WSJ, Irving Kristol supplied details about an invitation-only gathering of conservative Republicans. He delighted in pointing out that the conference was sponsored by none other than Bill Buckley. And he even more delightedly reported that most of the two dozen conservatives who had arrived as "conservatives first and Republicans second" had emerged from the gathering as "Republicans first and conservatives second." They had been taken away from conservatism and made Republicans first. And the meeting had been sponsored by Bill Buckley!
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 8:57:47 PM EST
Kristol never mentioned who the two dozen attendees at this Buckley-arranged conference were. But all of us have seen the Republican leaders in Congress fade into rubber stamps for a variety of socialistic and internationalist schemes in recent years. The reason? Republican leaders who were thought to be conservatives have been captured by the neoconservatives. And numerous policies and programs once deemed taboo by men who were labeled conservative are now being supported by them. One problem remains: These men are still being called conservatives. In this very same 1991 article, Kristol announced that the major conclusion reached by the new neocons at the Buckley-sponsored gathering was that "President Bush is now the leader of the conservative movement within the Republican Party." And this happened after Bush had demonstrated that he wasn’t a conservative himself. Perhaps the greatest indicator of President Bush’s neocon attitude was his use of U.S. forces and a UN resolution to reinvigorate the United Nations during the war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. "Reinvigorate" was his word, not mine. And his constant use of the term "new world order" said a great deal about what he was advocating. The Neocon Influence Do you wonder why Republicans are caving in when they should be standing firm against socialistic and internationalist programs? Do you wonder why Republicans in the Senate refused even to consider going after Bill Clinton for bribery and other serious crimes during the impeachment process? Do you wonder why opposition to the UN, World Bank, IMF, Export-Import Bank, Federal Reserve, etc. is almost nonexistent in the supposedly conservative political party? Well, stop wondering and consider that neoconservatives promoting their socialist and world government schemes have taken over not only the Republican Party but the conservative wing of the party. One of the more important promoters of the neocon program was Newt Gingrich. But we are still told that he’s a conservative. I know people who scratch their head and wonder what has happened to Trent Lott, Dick Armey, Phil Crane, Orrin Hatch, and others. The answer is that they aren’t conservatives any more; they’re neoconservatives even if the mass media won’t tell you. Add in Rush Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, Jack Kemp, Henry Kissinger, and a host of Republicans who toe the neocon line and you have your answer.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 8:58:17 PM EST
Again, neoconservatism is socialism and internationalism. And who opposes this? Why, the John Birch Society does. And who are enemies of the John Birch Society that some might have expected to be its friends and allies? Bill Buckley is; the Wall Street Journal is; and the intelligentsia who love to be called conservatives but will no more support the Constitution and those who truly defend it (such as the John Birch Society) than they would commit suicide. The greatest enemies of the John Birch Society in the over 40 years of its existence haven’t been Communists, and haven’t even been Democrats. The greatest enemies of the JBS are the false conservatives who are neoconservatives or who have allowed themselves to become captives of the neoconservatives. And the greatest of those has been Bill Buckley. He said in 1952 that he wanted Big Government and, in more recent years, he has done whatever he could do to supply dignity and excuses for the United Nations. the John Birch Society wants constitutionally limited government and our nation out of the UN — and the IMF, World Bank, NAFTA, WTO, etc. Hence Buckley decreed that the JBS should lose any "respectable support." But not only did he refuse support, he waged war against the John Birch Society. This is only a brief glimpse at the movement called neoconservatism. But I hope you grasp what it has accomplished. It, and all those it has captured, must be exposed. If you’ve been wondering how to classify William F. Buckley, you can start by realizing that he is and has been a neoconservative throughout his public career. But that’s only a start in considering this man’s career. About Buckley and his magazine, let me close by relating a revealing incident from 1961. This was only a little more than two years after Robert Welch founded the John Birch Society. Buckley’s magazine was already in existence. The incident I will relate was reported by Dr. Medford Evans in the old American Opinion magazine in October 1973. An early member of the Buckley team, Evans quit the Buckley crowd early on and joined the team led by JBS founder Robert Welch. This 1961 incident occurred in Dallas where he met Willmoore Kendall, the former Trotskyite, and a founder and senior editor of Buckley’s National Review. The two men were interviewing U.S. Army General Edwin Walker, a member of the John Birch Society at the time. After meeting with the general, they got together for a renewal of their limited friendship, and I’ll turn now to Medford Evans’ 1973 article for the full story of this incident: Kendall and I, still restless, went to a hamburger joint on Harry Hines Boulevard to drink coffee, reminisce about the past, and especially speculate about the future. After some comparatively idle talk Willmoore said to me: "Medford, I don’t suppose there is any chance you could get Walker to let up in his campaigning against Communism, is there?" I replied: "No, Willmoore, not a chance. You could stand him up against a wall and shoot him, but you couldn’t make him quit speaking out against Communism." (I thought Willmoore was just testing. He certainly was not jesting.) "I don’t suppose," he continued, "there’s any chance that you would even advise him to let up, would you?" I replied: "No, Willmoore, not a chance. You could stand me up against the same wall, but I would never advise him to quit fighting Communism."
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 8:58:53 PM EST
Later Willmoore wrote me a letter from Oklahoma City, returning his motel key which he had inadvertently taken away, and expressing his regret that he and I could no longer be on the same side. Personally, he said, he wished me well (and he said the same of another former National Review contributor), but as for the great issue, and this is verbatim: "C’est la guerre." Kendall’s parting comment, of course, translates to "Such is war." It would later become obvious that the war to which he was referring was not between anti-Communists and Communists, but rather between the forces led by Bill Buckley and those led by Robert Welch. Neoconservatives who took control of the conservative movement and became dominant within the Republican Party — except for what the John Birch Society has maintained and beefed up — have always hated the JBS. And too, it must be said very clearly that neoconservatives are our nation’s deadly enemies.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 9:06:17 PM EST
You words fall on deaf ears here.(ar15.commers except me) Politics suck and all their leeches. The mao will get flamed bigtime for this. The TON is already chatting with his goood ole boy network,working on their posts for the replies here. BTW locked this!
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 9:10:48 PM EST
omigod, not the John Birch Society! [:D] Not them! Please dear God in Heaven not them! [b]themao[/b], both my parents were proud members of the JBS back in the 60s. I grew up on a steady diet of John Stormer's [u]None Dare Call It Treason[/u], American Opinion Magazine, and Robert Welch's [u]The Politician[/u], so I know whereof I speak. They are no longer relevant. Simply put. Time has passed them by, sadly, but it has. So now I understand where you're coming from, and Rush Limbaugh must sound like the Anti-Christ to you. Eric The(FairEnough)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 9:14:37 PM EST
"neoconservatism" HA! What the hell was wrong with old conservatism. A conservatism is a conservatism and all others are commie butt heads.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 9:17:00 PM EST
So you admit to compromise on those principles? What goes does it do? I grew up listening to Rush and it seems that the Republicans aren't getting us any where. People want more and more socialism and more government in their lives than every before. As far as the JBS goes, what they say here in this article holds up fairly damn well. The part about Buckley being in cohoots with the CIA is kinda far fetched, but Buckley was OSS during WW II. He loves the state more than the constitution, and his writings affirm that. He views the federalized military as an instrumental arm of government. To what ends, I do not know, but it seems like he doesn't have a problem with the foreign interventionism of the past 50 years. War and welfare feeds the state quite well. themao [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 7:57:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/10/2002 8:02:32 AM EST by Benjamin0001]
So you admit to compromise on those principles? What goes does it do? I grew up listening to Rush and it seems that the Republicans aren't getting us any where. People want more and more socialism and more government in their lives than every before. As far as the JBS goes, what they say here in this article holds up fairly damn well. The part about Buckley being in cohoots with the CIA is kinda far fetched, but Buckley was OSS during WW II. He loves the state more than the constitution, and his writings affirm that. He views the federalized military as an instrumental arm of government. To what ends, I do not know, but it seems like he doesn't have a problem with the foreign interventionism of the past 50 years. War and welfare feeds the state quite well.
View Quote
Well Mao, I don't know if I agree with you, one thing about Buckley.. He always knows what he thinks... So if you have a question about such and such I am sure that he would give you a straight answer... You seem to be implying that Buckley views any governments military in the same tradition that you think he would view the british military.. At least that is what I am getting from your, "instrumental arm of government" scentence. Buckley is not a NEO-Conservative... The Term NEO conservative was created out of thin air by the Media in 1994 when the Republicans swept the house... Don't by into that term.. Suffice it say that a significant percentage of those Republicans elected in 94 were not Conservative.. If you really hate NEO Conservatives and you truly understood Conservatives you would see the Neither Rush nor Buckley are neo conservatives... There is no such animal.. Although the Hun can speak for himself, I would venture to say that the HUN isn't NEO conservative either... also, Buckley is old school.. He is the old money, deck shoe wearing , white casual slacks and cardigan sweater wearing conservative, and yes he even owns a Sail Boat or two, or three.. You should probably read his stuff written from the late 50's/early 60's onward... He has written a great deal. Ben
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 8:06:46 AM EST
Sorry, theMao, but Buckley isn't a [i]Neoconservative[/i], he's the ORIGINAL CONSERVATIVE, as he's considered the father of modern Conservative thought. Anyone attempting to imply that he's a Johnny-come-lately or a statist interloper into Conservative thought is grossly mistaken.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 8:53:34 AM EST
Buckley and Goldberg are highly amusing. Unlike the folks at the Spectator and Standard, they each have a well developed sense of humor (and irony). Not to rain on anybody's parade, but I have to agree that Rush is pompous to the nth degree, and certainly not my cup of tea.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 9:10:37 AM EST
Wow, I can't think of anyone more pompous than Wm. F. Buckley, Jr., himself, but then he and Rush have every right to be pompous! It's the rest of us that have to watch ourselves![:D] Eric The(GivenToFitsOfPomposity)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 9:55:46 AM EST
And all this from a guy named "themao." I guess it must be irony.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 10:23:26 AM EST
Neoconservative is a bullsh*t term. Only some one who profoundly does not know what he is talking about would call Buckley a Neoconservative. Calling Buckley a Neoconservative is like calling Barry Goldwater a Neoconservative the same goes for Rush. You may not like them but they are Conservatives The John Birch Society has always been on the fringes of the conservative movement and now I think would best be described as the crackpot fringe. The John Birch Society has never had any serious impact on the US political map; it has been and is irrelevant. The John Birch Society is normally used as a club by the left to beat real Conservatives. One of these days a lot of conservatives will figure out politics is not about getting your way all the time but about getting the best deal on an issue you can at a given time. The stupid if I don’t get my way I will go home and hold my breath attitude shows just how childish you are. You can damn politics and politicians all you want but this is the system we have work with it.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 10:31:31 AM EST
Rush’s radio show is based on the premise there is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats, when in fact there is not. The government grows at the same rate regardless of which party holds the upper hand in the house and Senate. The contract with America was a joke. I have listened to Rush for years, but I can not longer take him seriously.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 10:56:16 AM EST
Originally Posted By markl32: Rush’s radio show is based on the premise there is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats, when in fact there is not. The government grows at the same rate regardless of which party holds the upper hand in the house and Senate. The contract with America was a joke. I have listened to Rush for years, but I can not longer take him seriously.
View Quote
Actually, if you'd been listening in the last two months, Rush has been hammering Bush for giving the Dems everything they want. Rush does clearly proclaim fundamental conservative principles, to a point. More so than you have mark132. More so than I have. He ain't perfect, no question. But he's FAR better (on the whole, including listenership) than teh next best thing.
Link Posted: 7/11/2002 1:31:57 PM EST
Benjamin0001 (and everyone else for that matter): Buckley is in no way a true conservative. He doesn't match up to Barry Goldwater or the old school anti-war conservatives that populated Congress prior to entry into WW II. Where I was trying to get at in my last post was the fact that Buckley is all for a huge army, a CIA, etc. and foreign interventionism. He was for the Cold War and the fight "against communism". Now, if any of you believe that represents "conservative" values, I don't know how to help you. Buckley adores the state just as much as Hillary Clinton does. He seeks to keep only the warfare state in tact (vs. both welfare and warfare), and I have never read anything that would suggest a reversion to a pre-WW II size Department of Defense. I've never seen him call for the abolition of the central bank (Federal Reserve), BATF, FBI or any other unconstitutional federal agencies. Has Buckley ever come out against civil rights laws, union laws? Has he ever called for the abolition of the IRS? What about FDR's socialist social security? I don't think he wants to abolish it, he just wants to PRIVATIZE it, or in other words, allow for the state to take direct control over a private market with people's money, as dictated by law. Hell, his copatriot of the Weekly Standard, Irving Kristol, wrote the book called [b]NEOCONSERVATIVE[/b] to explain their idealogy. Jonah Goldberg of NRO even calls himself a neocon. I don't know what else to say. If you think that Buckley is a conservative, then either you change the definition of a conservative over time or you choose to ignore the past, pre-Cold War era, where everything got f#$ked up. I tend to credit this more to the nature of democracy than I do those "evil democrats" or even socialists. When politicians are given the opportunity to tell people that they'll give them a free ride or "fight for them against those rich bastards", what do you think voters will do? They'll vote themselves into oblivion, as is evident in this country and W. Europe. themao [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 7/11/2002 1:34:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By garandman: Actually, if you'd been listening in the last two months, Rush has been hammering Bush for giving the Dems everything they want. Rush does clearly proclaim fundamental conservative principles, to a point. More so than you have mark132. More so than I have. He ain't perfect, no question. But he's FAR better (on the whole, including listenership) than teh next best thing.
View Quote
But you can be damn sure he'll tell you to vote for GWB, even if he makes the Brady Bill permanent, or keeps the Patriot Act in tact. Did Rush criticize Ashcroft or Bush for that one by any chance? themao [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 7/11/2002 1:36:02 PM EST
Originally Posted By hardcase: And all this from a guy named "themao." I guess it must be irony.
View Quote
Well, as long as you love the state as much as Buckley, and you believe in this messed up system we have called "democracy", please vote me into office so that I can be [b]YOUR MAO[/b]. I'll tax and regulate you for the rest of your existence, so we can fight those "terrorists", fight poverty, racism and every other evil the state can use to justify taking away people's private property. themao [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 7/11/2002 1:36:55 PM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Wow, I can't think of anyone more pompous than Wm. F. Buckley, Jr., himself, but then he and Rush have every right to be pompous! It's the rest of us that have to watch ourselves![:D] Eric The(GivenToFitsOfPomposity)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
You're not pompous, you're just firm with your beliefs like me. themao [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 7/11/2002 1:40:45 PM EST
Call him whatever you fricken like but the guy speaks pretty well about my beliefs. If he's a neonazi, neodemocrate, neoconservative or space alien then I still agree with him. The JBS [wacko] Mega JBS Dittos!
Top Top