Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/19/2005 12:35:36 PM EDT
Below is what I consider a very good article written by a friend of mine, who is also the editor of a couple of smalltown West Texas newspapers. I think it hits the nail right on the head, and is a good explanation of a lot of the sh*t-slinging that goes on here at arfcom.

What say you? (Please do not comment unless you have actually read the entire article.) ......... okay, flame away!



The problem with Neo Cons (some of them)

by

Smokey Briggs

Gradually, over the past 10 years or so, I have seen a conflict coming
into view. It is a conflict that for years has been nebulous -- a
wispy shadow that troubled me but one that was hard to define -- or at
least hard to define outside the realm of gut-level reactions. Gut
level the conflict is simple to define -- it is the difference between
Country Club Republicans and what used to be called Southern Democrats.

As a conservative it has gradually dawned on my slow mind that there
are two distinct wars that we are fighting: one cultural and the other
political (for lack of a better defining name). The result is a hell
of a lot of confusion on the part of conservatives.

Conflict 1: is the cultural war often characterized as Left vs. Right.
It is the war between abortion and life, a prepared military and a
defunct military, those that would spit on troops coming home from a
mission that they had no real choice but to accept and those that would
not, those that would tax the middle class to redistribute the wealth
to the non-producers vs. those that know that such taxation is also
called theft, those that believe in the nanny state and those that will
not have it, those that believe that a strong nation is built on strong
families and those that praise homosexuality and feminism, those who
understand in their gut that individual ownership of firearms is the
key to freedom, and those that hate all weapons....

It is a long list. It is a war that has been apparent and obvious and
well publicized and a war that has direct, immediate effects on
individuals across the nation. (That is an important point.)

Conflict 2: is a political/legal war for lack of better definition. It
is the war of the individual vs. the state. The war of
Constitutionalist vs. Statist. The war of free market vs. communism.
The war of government power vs. individual god-given rights. Again, the
individual battles are many. But, the overall theme is the same.

There is one important difference between the two conflicts: Conflict
2 is not necessarily apparent to many people. The effects of Conflict 2
are not usually immediately felt by large groups of persons on a
national scale and not nearly so well publicized as what they are.
Loses (for conservatives) on this front are usually long-term effects
that will take a generation or more to fully feel an impact -- for
instance the Brown vs. Topeka decision in 1954 which wasn't fully felt
until early 70s and which even now is still manifesting itself in new
ways.

Obviously the two are completely and absolutely related. These are the
two faces of one war. But, it is not obvious. There are some good
conservatives in this country, who are riding a neo-con horse, because
all they can see is Conflict 1 and that is the only battle they are
fighting. They can feel (right now) the effect of Leftist cultural
policies and like cornered animals (after 70 or more years of this
onslaught) know in their guts that they are cornered. Their fight is
basically the blind fight of the cornered animal. Cornered animals do
not reason, they bite. They bite anything that looks threatening and
will take any opportunity that looks like it might get them out of the
current fix.

In this state they are easy political pickings for a smart political
party in Conflict 2. (The current leadership of the Republican party).
The Republican party found what it has lacked for its entire history --
grass roots support -- in these culturally cornered individuals. Here
it found emotional people desperate to survive. And it transformed its
IMAGE from country club blue bloods to the party of conservatives.

Unfortunately, IMAGE is all that changed. It is still the party of
country club, Northern industrialists who would enslave this country
for a short-sighted dime just as quickly as the opposition party would
enslave it for a similar short-sighted dime but one illuminated by a
wholly different cultural vision.

In essence, the Republican party has become a life-boat in the cultural
war for conservatives. Unfortunately, the life boat will beach on the
same beach the Democrat/Communist ship is heading for. But the
destination is not obvious. The alliances are not obvious. The end
results are not obvious -- not for the rank and file.

Just as importantly, the battles I have sorted out as Conflict 1 tend
to be based on emotion. Conflict 2's battles are rarely so emotional
for the rank and file, if for no other reason than the immediacy of the
result.

This is a long way from the concise description I would like to write.
But, I think, if we are not going to be swallowed up in this battle,
the definition must take place -- otherwise we will lose far too many
good souls to the wrong side -- souls led there by their gut reactions
to Conflict 1 battles.

While they are fighting the obvious cultural battle in front of them,
they are joining forces with the cause of the statist represented by
very similar Rep and Dem parties.

Summed up -- the Republican Party is flying under false colors -- and
many of our ilk haven't discovered the ruse -- or are so desperate to
win even a single battle in the ongoing war that they are willing to
ally themselves with anyone that gives them a chance at victory in the
battle that most obviously affects them. The political water of this
country is damned muddy and somehow we have to clear it up if we are to
have a chance of victory.

I'll be 40 this month. 15 years ago I would have probably supported
Pappas' position (relative to Cindy Sheehan) whole heartedly. After
growing up fighting an on-going cultural war with the cultural left I
had developed a knee-jerk reaction to anything that smelled of leftist
politics. (Not necessarily a bad thing). But, 15 years ago, I would
have written her off because of what I imagine are leftist cultural
motives driving her actions.

Today, while she may very well be a flaming communist, I am not blinded
by that knee-jerk response -- while her motives may be evil -- the
question she poses is worthwhile. I said it in my column yesterday and
I'll say it again, if this war was worthwhile Bush could have made
political hay out of Cindy Sheehan. He could not and he is too good a
politician to miss the chance if it were there.

The point is, many conservatives have been blinded by 70 years of
cultural battles and cannot see that statism led by Republicans is no
better than statism led by Democrats -- or more better -- Republican-
led conservatism leads to statism -- the exact end result all
conservatives fear of continued loses to the cultural and political
left.

Somehow, the blinders have to be removed. The contest must be
redefined. The current definitions we are working under lead to Rep vs.
Dems and nothing else -- and both sides represent defeat for freedom.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 12:42:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 12:43:24 PM EDT
By Neo-Cons do you mean Jews?

Or what exactly?

Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 12:45:50 PM EDT

The Problem with Neo-Cons...


IS THAT THEY ARE REALLY LIBERALS!!!
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 12:47:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2005 12:47:41 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
By Neo-Cons do you mean Jews?

Or what exactly?

Sgat1r5



BINGO

The problems with Neo-Cons is… they don’t exist.

Neo-Con is a made up BS pejorative term used by nuts to attack people they don’t like… quite often Jews they don’t like or in other words a screen for anti-Semitism.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 12:48:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 1:06:37 PM EDT

I can see from the responses so far that Smokey is right... so far.



Link Posted: 8/19/2005 2:24:08 PM EDT
His point at the end is incorrect IMO. I am not blinded , and my knee-jerk reactions to all things liberal is tempered by experience and a willingness to dig for what I want to know. Al Gore's present to America makes it impossible to pull off some of the things that were done in the past.
One big difference between the two parties' memberships is that most conservatives can axe one of their own for misbehavior. Watch next year and you will see Many of the "conservatives" that were elected here in TX last time have not lived up to their words and they will be very surprised come the next primary when we throw their asses out of office for it.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 2:25:39 PM EDT
Does this guy even make any sense to anyone here? To my understanding Neo-con is a foreign policy philosophy not a domestic cultural one. He talks about the statist vs. the individual then talks about the war in Iraq, is there any real connection between the two? I don't think so. As to saying people who are against neo-cons "anti-semetic" is is truly horse hockey. Plain fact is this, most Jews in America support Israel, only natural, But if you don't belive the US should be lead around on a leash to support Israel interests at the expense of everything else you should'nt be called an "anti-semite".
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 2:26:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
By Neo-Cons do you mean Jews?

Or what exactly?

Sgat1r5



BINGO

The problems with Neo-Cons is… they don’t exist.

Neo-Con is a made up BS pejorative term used by nuts to attack people they don’t like… quite often Jews they don’t like or in other words a screen for anti-Semitism.



Exactly. Anti-Semitism is where the far right and the far left meet, like a snake swallowing its tail.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 2:28:51 PM EDT
You think someones going to read that whole fucking article???!!!

Link Posted: 8/19/2005 2:32:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AShooter:
I can see from the responses so far that Smokey is right... so far.







Silly rabbit, if you don't love Israel with your entire body, including your pee pee you are just a .

Link Posted: 8/19/2005 2:33:32 PM EDT
Smokey (and Cindy)

Today, while she may very well be a flaming communist, I am not blinded
by that knee-jerk response -- while her motives may be evil -- the
question she poses is worthwhile. I said it in my column yesterday and
I'll say it again, if this war was worthwhile Bush could have made
political hay out of Cindy Sheehan. He could not and he is too good a
politician to miss the chance if it were there.



You and Cindy are merely blinded by a media that is vehemently opposed to the war and refuses to place anything we do in a good light. If we didn't pressure the ME to go democratic they'd just bide their time until another Nasser came along to take a shot at Israel and risk all out ME war, economic chaos etc. Try and remember too that Iraq was still in the wrong after it's withdrawal from Kuwait. Try and remember what he did to the oil fields there. Try and imagine if he was successful in invading SA and torched that country or took it over. No little Oil for Food UN crap would have worked there.

Europe is now getting interested in engaging Iran over the nuclear issues. Lybia denounced terrorism. Kuwait is expanding voting. Israel is getting out of Gaza. Hardly a peep is heard from Arab governments about Iraq's new government, at least in public. They're scared shitless that democracy will work and they'll have to change and face the music in their own countries rather than set back quietly and let this crazy islamic fascism be exported.

Party of the country club huh...that's a specious description. Kennedy's and Gore's v. Rockefeller's and Bush.

Doesn't ring true except in Smokey's dreams.

But the
destination is not obvious. The alliances are not obvious. The end
results are not obvious -- not for the rank and file.


Guess Smokey's got a secret decoder ring that makes it all obvious to him.


Link Posted: 8/19/2005 2:34:29 PM EDT
I'm wary of anyone who tosses the "communist" label around.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 2:37:39 PM EDT
Like most people, Smokey doesn't even really know what the word "neo-con" means.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 2:42:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2005 2:43:47 PM EDT by MachinegunManiac]
He gets a D-. His thoughts are incomplete and not well connected. He doesn't back up his claims with fact and there doesn't seem to be a main complete thought of his ranting.

He contradicts himself. He says that conservatives need to be more accepting of liberals and liberal policies and yet be cautious of the Republicans because they're "socialists"?

Republicans are held responsible for thier actions and catch hell for any mistakes they make. Democrats on the other hand, "can never do wrong".

I only agree on that we could really use a party that better represents us(if that's what he was implying). But he offers no solutions himself.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 2:45:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:
You think someones going to read that whole fucking article???!!!



Don't strain yourself if it's too much for you. I know there are some big words in there, but if you really work at it, you can probably get all the way through it... You MIGHT even understand some of it!

As for those who think "neo-con" is code language for "Jew", I think that sort of illustrates Smokey's whole point.

As for me, I'd say "neo-con" is code language for "modern Republican statist flying the false flag of 'Conservatism' who has sold out our Country and our Constitution for who knows what reason, but it sure as hell ain't the reason they've been telling us"... Conservatism has not changed in my lifetime, but the Republican Party sure as hell has. That's what I mean by "neo-con".

Link Posted: 8/19/2005 2:47:37 PM EDT
The term NEO-CON has existed for along time, I remember it from a Poli-Sci class in the 80s. It did/does refer to the former socialist Jews who had an awakening and shifted to the conservative cause.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 2:56:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AShooter:
Conservatism has not changed in my lifetime, but the Republican Party sure as hell has. That's what I mean by "neo-con".



Bull. The Republicans used to be dominated by the Northeastern Rockefeller wing, plus some isolationists. Ike and WFB made the party internationalist when they recognized that isolationism was a non-starter in the Cold War.

A better candidate for "statists" in the Repblican party are the former southern Democrats who joined the party in the 80's and 90's. They're social conservatives but have a much more accepting attitude towards government action, or at least government spending. They also have the advantage of numbers and actual elected offices held, while the neocons number of few hundred on a good day.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 2:58:15 PM EDT
Why did you put the entire article in italics?
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 3:19:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2005 3:21:12 PM EDT by raven]

Originally Posted By AShooter:

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:
You think someones going to read that whole fucking article???!!!



Don't strain yourself if it's too much for you. I know there are some big words in there, but if you really work at it, you can probably get all the way through it... You MIGHT even understand some of it!

As for those who think "neo-con" is code language for "Jew", I think that sort of illustrates Smokey's whole point.

As for me, I'd say "neo-con" is code language for "modern Republican statist flying the false flag of 'Conservatism' who has sold out our Country and our Constitution for who knows what reason, but it sure as hell ain't the reason they've been telling us"... Conservatism has not changed in my lifetime, but the Republican Party sure as hell has. That's what I mean by "neo-con".



You can't make your own personal definition of a word then expect anyone to understand what you are talking about.

t-stox was generally right when he said


Does this guy even make any sense to anyone here? To my understanding Neo-con is a foreign policy philosophy not a domestic cultural one.


So was STLRN


The term NEO-CON has existed for along time, I remember it from a Poli-Sci class in the 80s. It did/does refer to the former socialist Jews who had an awakening and shifted to the conservative cause.


Guys like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz were such guys. New York Jewish intellectuals who were Marxist/socialists in the 40's but abandoned those ideas and became conservative in the 60's. Their respective sons, William Kristol and John Podhoretz, are active conservative commentators today. Kristol's magazine, The Weekly Standard, could accurately be described as neo-con. In any case, neo-conservatism is primarily a foreign policy outlook, like Isolationism, Liberal Multilateralism, or Realism.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 3:38:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2005 3:41:49 PM EDT by AShooter]
Okay, I stand corrected on the meaning of the term, "neo-con". I always thought it meant "after-conservatives", kinda like "neo-Nazi" or "neo-hippie". I didn't realize it referred to a specific bunch of Jews.

So, I guess I should say that my bitch is with the modern (read Post-Reagan) Republican Party in general, and the Bush-ites specifically. So, substitute the phrase "GeeDubya Republicans" in place of "neo-cons" in the article above and you'll see what I'm agreeing with... I can't speak for Smokey, but I'm pretty sure he's meaning the same thing.

... You must admit, there is a knee-jerk reaction of wildly flailing about and calling people "Liberal!" any time somebody questions the wisdom or motives of the Bush-ites these days. Hell, I would consider myself about 60% Pat Buchanan "Conservative" and 40% "Libertarian" and I've had people here (arfcom, not this thread) accusing me of being a troll for the Michael Moore crowd! Anybody that's ever had a political discussion with me for more than a few seconds would know that is about as ridiculous as calling Stalin a great Libertarian philanthropist!

Anyway, I still have yet to hear a meaningful comment on Smokey's general idea. Namely that "Conservatives" have more or less blindly hitched up with the "neo-cons" simply because they have nobody else to hitch up to... NOT because they really represent "Conservatism" and Liberty and are true to the Constitution.



Link Posted: 8/19/2005 3:48:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 3:50:10 PM EDT
Well, to explain why the neo-cons have such influence today while they were ignored for about 20-30 years, it's all because of 9/11. After that, nobody had any real ideas about how to tackle the problem or what direction US foreign policy should take except for the neo-cons and their overall strategy of spreading democracy to make the world safer for American interests.

Funny thing is, that since 1945 the Left has criticized American foreign policy for siding with authoritarian regimes that oppress democratic, left-wing movements in the third world in the interests of stopping the USSR and spread of communism. After 9/11, Bush announces that we're going to spread and support democracy across the world, and the Leftists are even more freaked out. This is even scarier and more horrible than supporting people like Marcos and Somoza to them.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 3:51:59 PM EDT

I think the fact that the modern Demcratic Party is a bunch of Socialists and freaks and teh Republican party are pretty much a bunch of One Worlders is well known. They are both for total govt control of just about everything they just have there own versions of big govt.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 3:57:33 PM EDT
Keep the Republicans out of my bedroom, the Democrats out of my wallet and the liberals out of my gun safe.

That's all I ask.

Link Posted: 8/19/2005 4:02:58 PM EDT
Your buddy's tome reads like Libertarian horseshit.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 4:11:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AShooter:
I can see from the responses so far that Smokey is right... so far.




I can see by that, that YOU will deliberately ignore any information that doesn't match your preconceptions, so your opinion is f'n worthless.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 4:14:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
Does this guy even make any sense to anyone here? To my understanding Neo-con is a foreign policy philosophy not a domestic cultural one. He talks about the statist vs. the individual then talks about the war in Iraq, is there any real connection between the two? I don't think so. As to saying people who are against neo-cons "anti-semetic" is is truly horse hockey. Plain fact is this, most Jews in America support Israel, only natural, But if you don't belive the US should be lead around on a leash to support Israel interests at the expense of everything else you should'nt be called an "anti-semite".

Read it again, from a Isolationist-Libertarian worldview, then it'll make "sense".
Support for Iraq War, "forcing" Democracy = Statism to such folk.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 4:16:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
But the
destination is not obvious. The alliances are not obvious. The end
results are not obvious -- not for the rank and file.


Guess Smokey's got a secret decoder ring that makes it all obvious to him.



Exactly. Anytime someone starts dismissing the folks that don't agree with their theory as 'rank and file' / proles / sheeple - they're fucking Idiots.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 4:24:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DigDug:
Do you know how the democratic party kept control of the USA for so long? Can anyone answer that question? I bet you can't be honest enough to do it.

"for so long" WTF, are you 20-something??
It was two terms. And a similar, but staggered, timeframe in Congress. In the 60 years since the end of WW2, an (R) has held the Presidency for 33 of them.
In the last 36yrs, (R) has held the office for 24 of them.
For the last 24yrs, 16 of them.
Congress has been (R) dominated since '96.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 4:25:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rustygun:
I think the fact that the modern Demcratic Party is a bunch of Socialists and freaks and teh Republican party are pretty much a bunch of One Worlders is well known. They are both for total govt control of just about everything they just have there own versions of big govt.

Grossly overstating it. Republicans certainly are NOT 'One-Worlders'.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 4:40:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DigDug:
Do you know how the democratic party kept control of the USA for so long? Can anyone answer that question? I bet you can't be honest enough to do it.



Because the Democratic party used to hold true to very similar principles as the current Republican party.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 5:36:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2005 5:39:21 PM EDT by AShooter]

Originally Posted By rayra:
Various and sundry horse-shit....




Um.... Rayra, do you think there's any chance that you might fall into the category Smokey described here?

"They can feel (right now) the effect of Leftist cultural
policies and like cornered animals (after 70 or more years of this
onslaught) know in their guts that they are cornered. Their fight is
basically the blind fight of the cornered animal. Cornered animals do
not reason, they bite. They bite anything that looks threatening
..."



Link Posted: 8/19/2005 5:38:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2005 5:43:00 PM EDT by senorFrog]
I think of NEO-CONS as liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues. Basically like any Republican here in MASS.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 5:42:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By senorFrog:
I think of NEO-CONS as liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues.




No no no... THAT would be called a "Libertarian"!
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 5:44:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2005 5:53:27 PM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By AShooter:
The point is, many conservatives ...cannot see that statism led by Republicans is no
better than statism led by Democrats .



Well, except that NO true conservative is in any way a statist. Or would tolerate any form of statism.

But then, Republican does NOT = conservative.

I think your friend makes it all too complicated.

Stated another way, the term neo-con is akin to labelling someone a liberal conservative, which is non-sensical.

Link Posted: 8/19/2005 5:49:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 5:50:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By Rustygun:
I think the fact that the modern Demcratic Party is a bunch of Socialists and freaks and teh Republican party are pretty much a bunch of One Worlders is well known. They are both for total govt control of just about everything they just have there own versions of big govt.

Grossly overstating it. Republicans certainly are NOT 'One-Worlders'.



"Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war.
Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations."
--George Bush, March 6, 1991


Rayra, methinks you doth protest too much.

Link Posted: 8/19/2005 5:51:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By AShooter:
I can see from the responses so far that Smokey is right... so far.







Silly rabbit, if you don't love Israel with your entire body, including your pee pee you are just a .




No, but when the word NEO-Con is used I realize I am reading a VERY biased article.

SGatr15
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 5:52:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AShooter:

Originally Posted By senorFrog:
I think of NEO-CONS as liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues.




No no no... THAT would be called a "Libertarian"!



Libertarians are just liberals with guns.

SGat1r5
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 5:54:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By AShooter:

Originally Posted By senorFrog:
I think of NEO-CONS as liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues.




No no no... THAT would be called a "Libertarian"!



Libertarians are just liberals with guns.

SGat1r5



And blunts.

Link Posted: 8/19/2005 5:55:39 PM EDT
And how come that all these people that say the rebuplican party isn't "conservative" enough are often athiests?

Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 5:59:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
And how come that all these people that say the rebuplican party isn't "conservative" enough are often athiests?

Sgat1r5



Divide and conquer??

Link Posted: 8/19/2005 5:59:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
And how come that all these people that say the rebuplican party isn't "conservative" enough are often athiests?

Sgat1r5



Prob b/c of how Christianity has been interpreted her ein the USA. Sum it up, give em another chance. Lib's thought process: Serial killer, give em another chance. It's like forget repentance and move right on to absolution.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 5:59:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
And how come that all these people that say the rebuplican party isn't "conservative" enough are often athiests?

Sgat1r5



Divide and conquer??




You may be right Gman, I never thought of that.

I wonder where they get there major funding.

Sgatr125
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 6:09:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PaintItBlack:
Keep the Republicans out of my bedroom, the Democrats out of my wallet and the liberals out of my gun safe.

That's all I ask.




You're asking for too much.

How is the moral majority gonna save your soul if they can't see you sin?

How are the Democrats gonna fund their socialism without your dollars?

And how are the liberals gonna have peace on Earth if they don't ban evil guns and pointy sticks.

Link Posted: 8/19/2005 6:11:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By AShooter:

Originally Posted By senorFrog:
I think of NEO-CONS as liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues.




No no no... THAT would be called a "Libertarian"!



Libertarians are just liberals with guns.

SGat1r5



And blunts.




Crap, I hadn't realized I was a dope smoking liberal....shit.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 6:12:08 PM EDT


Originally Posted By PaintItBlack:
Keep the Republicans out of my bedroom,



YOu flatter yourself.

She said you were below average.



Link Posted: 8/19/2005 6:12:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rayra:
Your buddy's tome reads like Libertarian horseshit.



Thanks for reminding this Libertarian to STOP voting Republican.

Link Posted: 8/19/2005 6:13:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By garandman:

And blunts.




Crap, I hadn't realized I was a dope smoking liberal....shit.



That's all you ever hear from Libertarians - "stay outta my hash bag."

Don't blame me.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top