Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/2/2001 12:27:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2001 9:50:12 AM EDT by libertyof76]
There are two kinds of conservatives: Neo-conservatives: Some of these are former liberals who lost faith in the liberal ideology in the 60's-80's. They brought their non-think to the conservative side though. They are pro-interventionist. They want to project American power all over the world, and meddle in the affairs of other countries, regardless of the consequences. They are very pragmatic, giving up principles to get ahead. They care little for liberty when it gets in the way of their agenda. William Buckley and National Review are the leaders of this movement. They tend to worship Lincoln and hate the South. They also tend to like FDR. They have hijacked the meaning of the word conservative. Tend to believe that the government can be involved in some areas of the economy. Paleo-conservatives: These are the direct descendants ideologically from the Founding Fathers. They are mostly libertarians, but they believe in morallity, God, etc. They are non-interventionist. They'd rather have no political ties to any other country, but would have many economic and social contacts(non-governmental though). They take principles over pragmatism, and are very hesitant to compromise. Pro-South, anti-Lincoln, anti-FDR, and anti-New Deal. They believe that they government should not be involved in any area of the economy Ron Paul is one example. Liberty, and not winning, is their highest ideal.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 12:31:55 PM EDT
who invented these categories? it looks like one of those libertarian "tests" to make people think they are libertarians.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 12:36:16 PM EDT
F)Agnostic, borderline atheist, fiscally conservative, isolationist, armed white male conservative.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 12:40:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Avtomat: who invented these categories? it looks like one of those libertarian "tests" to make people think they are libertarians.
View Quote
I agree...but the "pale-conserative" is a damn good description of me.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 12:50:26 PM EDT
Where do I fit in if I'm somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun? But somewhere to the left of your neo's?
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 1:09:40 PM EDT
My question is where would u put shrub?
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 3:07:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Vampire: My question is where would u put shrub?
View Quote
Neo-conservative. All "conservative" presidents are.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 3:11:58 PM EDT
I'm an Anarchist/ Libertarian. You didn't have that category. [8P] -SS
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 3:24:35 PM EDT
By your definitions, I'm pale- conservative, but that's not a real good description. I'm more of a Constitutionalist. The Bill of Right in it's original form is what we need to go back to. If a law ever has a possibility of being unconstitutional (as the majority of them are), it should be gone. I'm pro-Southern (what southerner isn't??) I kinda wish that Lincoln had lived long enough to send the slaves back to africa. I also wish that Monroe had done a better job with Lyberia ( he had the same idea as Abe,but actually had a country set up for the slaves). VERY anti FDR (Social security??? I'm not gonna get out what I put into it.) But with todays anti-America setiment, we should get rid of all liberals (every liberal is anti-America in my book) and attack anyone who makes a move on us, and utterly destroy them. Statring with France, because that would take about 5 minutes to fininsh!! Then set up Giant parking lots where their cities once stood. [smoke]
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 4:16:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2001 4:08:35 PM EDT by 5subslr5]
VAMPIRE, has asked a deep and penetrating question and is being ignored. I don't see how meaningful discussion can proceed with without addressing this question. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 6:53:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 7:00:16 PM EDT
G) I'm a beer drinking, pu$$y chasing, and firearms loving conservative. [heavy] Am I the only person is like this on the board?
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 7:11:50 PM EDT
I'm a conservative. That's about it.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 7:17:52 PM EDT
That's not a particularly good description of neo-conservatives, and Bill Buckley and NR would reject the neo-con label. Commentary would be a better flagship mag, maybe along with The Public Interest. The neo-cons mostly came from the left, often with a distant marxist background. Irving Kristol, one of the founding lights, was a Trotskyist back in his college days. Ditto for Norman Podhertz in his Columbia days. They tend to deploy the tools of social science more than conventional conservatives. They came into their own in the late 60's and into the 70's as the left and liberals got progressively loopier; some of the academics were horrified by the collapse of backbone in the academy in the face of protesters. The internationalist bent is not a defining characteristic of neo-cons. Ike was an internationalist long before there were neocons. The Reagan administration picked up quite a few neocons for administration posts. Kirkpatrick, William Bennett, and other ex-Democrats provided a lot of the intellectual brainpower and knife-fighting skills for Reagan as he rolled back communism in Central America and Eastern Europe. Having had extensive contact with the marxists in their younger days, the neocons had no illusions about them and were happy to slice them up. Plus all that academic infighting breeds savage bureacratic warriors.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 7:30:20 PM EDT
It's not "pale-conservative", its "paleo-conservative" [:E] Maybe Libertarians don't read too very that good much.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 7:42:09 PM EDT
The "neo-conservatives" of today are the Democrats of the 50's. They didn't "lose faith" in the liberal ideology; they just got left behind as the Democratic Party moved more and more radically leftwards/socialist. Ronald Reagan was a conservative of this stripe.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 11:04:44 PM EDT
Some of them did indeed "lose faith". The Great Society anti-poverty programs was one point at which the neocons split from the liberals--the neocons examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that the programs were harmful. As the godfather Irving Kristol himself put it, "a neoconservative is a liberal who was mugged by reality." For Kristol's (very brief) critique of Buckley, see [url]http://reason.com/rb/rb101701.shtml[/url] See also [url]http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9610/opinion/neuchterlein.html[/url] and [url]http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9605/opinion/thistime.html[/url] "Not everyone concedes the death of neoconservatism. The so-called paleoconservatives-an odd amalgam of extreme libertarians, isolationists, anti-Vatican II Catholics, and unreconstructed defenders of the Southern Confederacy-find their reason for being in endless denunciations of the neoconservatives, and of the National Review traditionalists for having sold out to them. The idea of neoconservatism as a liberal plot to highjack conservatism for the left might seem hopelessly dated-the social democratic wing of neoconservatism disappeared long ago-but it remains vibrantly alive in the pages of journals like Chronicles and in the imaginations of ideologues attracted to the candidacy of Pat Buchanan. "
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 4:34:19 AM EDT
Me??? Paleo, definitely. But the label kinda sounds too much like "Piltdown." Heck, it sounds downright evolutionary. [BD] [%|] [:D]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 4:49:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2001 7:19:12 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
You're my hero, libertyof76. [img]http://www.ar15.com/images/bioPics/libertyof76.jpg[/img] You're just like the founding fathers, aren't you?
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 7:11:02 AM EDT
What if you're pro-gun, don't care what color/race/creed/religion someone is. What if you look at the issuses prior to voting, versus vote along party lines? What if you are pro-choice? What if you think Lincoln was right, but had issues? What if you were a card-carrying Republican WASP with a black girlfriend while in high-school? Now I shoot, want to annihilate Islamic Fundamentalists, was all for Desert Storm, and Operation enduring freedom, but did not feel Vietnam was a justified war the way we fought it. So all these questions apply to me.... I claim no religion, but believe in God.... I guess instead of conservative or liberal or moderate, I'm just "confused" [thinking]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 7:27:26 AM EDT
Shame on you, Coz. [:)]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 7:31:24 AM EDT
Definately Paleo.....
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 7:34:07 AM EDT
That's good. [:)]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 7:45:37 AM EDT
Paleo? Ok, I suppose I could fit there.....though I actually think some government is necessary..... This is too deep for Monday morning before lunch.... Cheers
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 7:55:30 AM EDT
Argh. Well...DEFINITELY not a Neocon. Not really a paleocon... 1. Yes, I believe in the words of the Founding Fathers. 2. Nope...not entirely a libertarian. Not pro-abort, and while I have probs with the drug war I have equal probs with people saying that because marijuana is good we should legalize black tar heroin. 3. Yes, I am non interventionalist but not to that degree. I think some basic communication and trade is necessary. BASIC, mind you. But I think doing something like telling the commie's at the height of the cold war to go screw off because we don't need to talk to them would have been....imprudent. 4. I am not hesitant to compromise....I take my stance from the original HK...'some men don't'. 5. I am NOT pro-South, and I am NOT-anti Lincoln. Nor am I anti-South and pro-Lincoln. I think the issue is too complex to devolve to such simple lines. 5a. I am not completely anti-FDR, but I am severely anti-New Deal. 6. I don't think the gov needs to be removed from the economy. I think it needs about four or five strong steps in the backward direction, but not entirely removed. I mean, as I recall, there are some precepts in the Constitution that call for government to have SOME involvement in the economy. So I'm really not either. I'm just me.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 8:08:49 AM EDT
And who made YOU the authority of all things conservative? Simply reading your "definitions" we can come to the conclusion that you consider yourself "paleo" and that you care very little for those you define as "neo's". By what criteria did you use in coming up with these catagories? Or did you just pull them out of your ass? Christ! As Second Amendment patriots we should be looking for the ties that bind us together rather than arbitrary catagories that do nothing but divide us.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 8:12:43 AM EDT
Here's is the authority: [img]http://www.ar15.com/images/bioPics/libertyof76.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 8:23:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2001 8:16:36 AM EDT by MIerinMD]
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: Here's is the authority: [img]http://www.ar15.com/images/bioPics/libertyof76.jpg[/img]
View Quote
Are you kidding me? The kid looks about 14 years old! Maybe he should just stick to his paper route.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 8:41:18 AM EDT
It kind puts it all into perspective, doesn't it?
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 8:51:32 AM EDT
[b]What about a Centralist[/b] Don't change the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Can't vote.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 10:07:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MIerinMD:Are you kidding me? The kid looks about 14 years old! Maybe he should just stick to his paper route.
View Quote
Ha! Try 21yo. Where do I get the classifications? From my own observations, and the eminent source of anti-neo-cons: [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com[/url]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 10:24:58 AM EDT
"Paleo-conservatives: These are the direct descendants ideologically from the Founding Fathers. They are mostly libertarians, but they believe in morallity, God, etc." HA HA HA HA HA HA ,I READ THAT AND JUST ABOUT PISSED ON MYSELF! But you did hit right on the head my man. I am a conservative,I'm ideologically a descendant of the Founders and I believe in morallity, God, etc. unlike people that call them selves libertarians. Now,I know what they like to say but................well let me put it this way,did you see Mr. Brown on Fox News? If you did do you think we should buy anything these nuts say? LOL! BTW:10 points for Avtomat,way to put that BS x-ray to work[;)]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 12:15:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76:
Originally Posted By MIerinMD:Are you kidding me? The kid looks about 14 years old! Maybe he should just stick to his paper route.
View Quote
Ha! Try 21yo. Where do I get the classifications? From my own observations, and the eminent source of anti-neo-cons: [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com[/url]
View Quote
21? Nah, I don't buy it. "From your own observations?" Even with "21" years behind you, you think you've got a pretty good handle on the conservative movement? I bet you don't even know who William F. Buckley Jr. is, let alone know what he really thinks. And I'm always leery of someone touting information from a website dedicated to one person. Rather than getting a wealth of information and making an educated evaluation of any given topic, you end up getting only stuff that that particular individual wants to feed you. To wit: [b]LewRockwell.com highlights the news and commentary that [i]he[/i] (emphasis added) finds important, or simply interesting.[/b] [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/about.html[/url] And talk about egomanicial! Who names a frickin' website after themselves? Talk about a "Hey, look at me" complex. Try again Junior.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:30:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: 21? Nah, I don't buy it.
View Quote
You are of course free to not believe what I say, but I am 21. I could post my Driver's License, but I doubt you'd believe it too.
"From your own observations?" Even with "21" years behind you, you think you've got a pretty good handle on the conservative movement? I bet you don't even know who William F. Buckley Jr. is, let alone know what he really thinks.
View Quote
Yes, I do think I have a pretty good handle on the conservative movement. Its not that difficult to find out. And I do know who Buckley is. I subscribe to NR.
And I'm always leery of someone touting information from a website dedicated to one person. Rather than getting a wealth of information and making an educated evaluation of any given topic, you end up getting only stuff that that particular individual wants to feed you. To wit: [b]LewRockwell.com highlights the news and commentary that [i]he[/i] (emphasis added) finds important, or simply interesting.[/b] [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/about.html[/url] And talk about egomanicial! Who names a frickin' website after themselves? Talk about a "Hey, look at me" complex. Try again Junior.
View Quote
Any site is always biased, even those who aren't "dedicated" to one individual. And that doesn't take away whether he is right or wrong. Your arguments are called [i]ad hominum[/i] attacks. Try arguing WHY I'm wrong instead of attacking my age.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:51:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SouthernShark: I'm an Anarchist/ Libertarian. You didn't have that category. [8P] -SS
View Quote
[:D]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:57:25 PM EDT
OK, you're wrong because you think Buckley--Buckley!--is a neoconservative, can't correctly identify neoconservative journals, think neoconservatives "hate the south", think conservatism can be divided into two camps, and generally don't know what you're talking about.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 5:57:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mcgredo:OK, you're wrong because you think Buckley--Buckley!--is a neoconservative, can't correctly identify neoconservative journals, think neoconservatives "hate the south", think conservatism can be divided into two camps, and generally don't know what you're talking about.
View Quote
Buckley IS a neo-conservative, Neo-cons DO hate the south, convervatism CAN be divided into two(general, nothing is clear cut), and I DO know what I am talking about.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 9:50:36 PM EDT
Try expanding your intellectual horizons a bit, son, and read something besides a blinkered, obsessed, puppy-kicking crank libertarian web site. Have you read any of the neoconservatives? Which ones? Have you read anything at all of other conservatives? There's a lot more than two sides to the movement, even two sides when sophistically defined by some twerp looking to evoke a response that agrees with him. Your definition of "paleoconservative" is deficient as well. The only really prominent paleoconservative around is Pat Buchanan (post-Reagan age, when he was running on minor party tickets.) The libertarianism and paleoconservatism don't go together at all in his case--he's a protectionist, which any true libertarian would whip out his no-force-or-fraud talisman to ward off. Libertarians would have trouble recognizing anything at all that they liked about him. Capitalism and conservatism in general are a mass of internal contradictions, ("tensions" if you want to be philisophical and are down with conservative whigs like Burke) seeing as how capitalism is the greatest engine of revolutionary change ever seen by man.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 10:06:41 PM EDT
I am a Paleo/Neo/Libertarian Mix. I believe in most of the Paleo stuff like Hating FDR and Lincoln, Loving the South, etc. But, I am more Libertarian in that I have my morals, but I do not beleive that the Government should regulate morals. But, I fall in the Neo category when it comes to "meddling." I 100% support the U.S. supporting Isreal. I have no problem with the U.S. projecting its military might around the world. Some say this is not what the founding fathers wanted. Yet, James Madison would have loved this. Jefferson was a worldly man and traveled around for the U.S. before becoming President. The founding fathers (Jefferson I believe) sent troops to the Barbary Coast to fight off Pirates, then left a number there to keep the Pirates in check. This is the "to the shores of Tripoli" part of the Marine Corps Hymn.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 11:05:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/4/2001 7:14:00 AM EDT by Dave_G]
Don't ya just hate college kids who have no concept of what the real world is like? Now he's peddling anti-American propaganda and acting like he's a rational, independent thinker. Well, lib, one of these days you will leave college and venture out into the world on your own. A word of warning when you do...Keep your trap shut. It will be less painful and may save you a few beatings. After a while, you may come to realize that the heroes you worship today are just a pack o' whining windbags who are the antithesis of what the United States and the Founding Fathers stand for.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 11:12:10 PM EDT
I'm a bad boy. I like Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, and when in comes to North vs. South, I say West. I don't like FDR, but even so I guess I'm not good enough.
Link Posted: 12/4/2001 5:00:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/4/2001 5:03:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/4/2001 4:57:43 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
More to the point, it's a poll that's created, not to find out how people feel about a topic. It was created because the pollster wants us to know what HE thinks.
Link Posted: 12/4/2001 5:05:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cc48510: But, I am more Libertarian in that I have my morals, but I do not beleive that the Government should regulate morals.
View Quote
How do you reconcile that staement with the reality of the gov't enforcing murder, theft, rape statutes, all of which have a DEFINITE moral context?? Should gov't NOT be in the business of catching murderers and thieves? Where do you draw the line between enforcing the "morality" of murder laws, vs. enforcing "other morality?" And why? Not a flame, just curious.
Link Posted: 12/4/2001 5:31:58 AM EDT
Gun-owning, Heterosexual, Southern white male who wishes he could own all class 3 items at low prices and be allowed every weapon/piece of equipment used by the US military (short of nukes and ICBM's). Where do I fit in?
Link Posted: 12/4/2001 6:46:50 PM EDT
1)I am pro-Affirmative-Action in goverment, but private industry should be able to hire who they want. 2) I am libertarian but I do like goverment regulation in the food, drug & building areas. 3) I don't agree in foreign intervention. I think we should cut off Israel and other nations. In sum, I am like a 50's Democrat, just less racist.
Link Posted: 12/4/2001 6:58:20 PM EDT
Your categories are male cattle excrement. "Because you think this you cannot think that." Socialize medicine Stop lobbyist controlled congress No government borrowing (GWB is taking us past 6 Trillion in new debt this year after the $300.00 vote buyout) The three documents to the letter.
Link Posted: 12/4/2001 8:52:06 PM EDT
mcgredo- Like I said, I subscribe to National Review. I also read townhall.com. And yeah, the categories were a little screwed up. They were just my attempt to cause a little hubbub![:D] cc48510: Both Washington and Jefferson warned against projecting ourselves around the world. If you read what they wrote they were quite prescient. Dave: Is it anti-american to stand for liberty? for the constitution? if it is than I guess I am. It is sad that america now means tyranny. And why is it propaganda? Anything the government says it propaganda, but you believe that? And I will not keep my "trap shut". I will not be silence. Anybody that tries to beat me because I believe something different(sounds like the Taliban to me) would be opposite of what this country stands for, and of course they would meet the business end of a .45. And I don't see how the people I listen too(ex: Lew) is the anti-thesis of the Founders. Given that he points to lengthy writings by the Founders that support what he says(like George Washington's Fairwell Address. Have you ever read it?), it seems that you are the anti-thesis of the Founders. raf: hehe. yeah, in hindsight you are right. grimshaw: What are you talking about? Socialize medicine? That's socialism!
Link Posted: 12/4/2001 9:13:40 PM EDT
Garandman, I know you'd love it if the government regulated morals, but there is a difference between a moral offense and a criminal offense. A criminal offense involves some kind of depravation of a second party. This can be financial or physical. If I were to murder someone, I would be depriving them of life. That would be a crime. I would pay before the human courts, then in Hell. But, suppose I were to nail my (This is na example. Nothing herein contained factually relates to me or my family.) male cousin. Well, that is just plain sick. But, have I deprived anyone of anything. Short answer: No. So what would happen. Well, the courts should leave it alone. These moral offenses are God's Juristdiction. The Government is not God no matter how much they believe they are. Most likely (Definitely) I'd burn in Hell for it, but it is none of the Government's Business because I would've deprived noby of their life or property.
Top Top