Posted on 03/13/2004 10:56:05 AM PST by quidnunc
I assumed (perhaps wrongly), that a statement would be quickly following telling me about the 'dangers' of Iraq and how it was in defense of this nation of states.
Sigh. Yes. I know what you were expecting. Very troll-like: Change the subject, ignite a flame war, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, I won't fall for the bait. Try it on somebody else.
Where does the evolution of either neo-con, or paleo-con lead America?
The evidence suggest neo-conservatism indeed evolves straight and unmistakenly into the maelstrom of pure liberalism.
And just what evidence is it which suggests that?
I wouldn't blame the press -- there IS a problem.
The GOP's "spectrum," can be considered by enough conservatives a splintering, and thus creating enough of a chasm in party philosophy to eventually create a Third Party.
Rampant RINOism which flirts with socialism and Big Goverment, caves in to contemporary social and cultural liberal policies, supports liberal immigrant policies and enforcement, and dances around 'America First' issues.
And YOUR evidence to the contrary?
Paleocons and their ilk are destined to forever bottom-feed in the fever swamps of the lunatic fringe, as evidenced by the fact that their best-known champion garnered a mere 0.42% of the vote in Y2K.
Lose, heck, he should be impeached.
I await your case that GWB puts other nations interests ahead of our own.
Anyway, GO KERRY!!
We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, .05% third party fringees, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!
The paleoconservative heyday occurred in the early and mid-1990s with anti-immigration, isolationist, anti-free trade, ultranationalist Pat Buchanan making more than a marginal impact in his runs for the Republican presidential nomination... At the vanguard in the beginning and toeing the line in the present is Chronicles magazine and its web presence www.chroniclesmagazine.org. Long considered the movement's bible, the mag has dipped in circulation from 20,000 at its peak to less than 5,000. — quidnuncAnd don’t forget, "hard money". ;')
Cute buzzword for "simply bitter & contrarian". Loserdopians without the weed. — VaBthang4LOL! Well put!
I'm guessing (a bit):
1. Economic protectionism, such as we had in the nineteenth century (not to mention the 1930's) when the US was rather a poor country.
2. Foreign policy designed for a weak country, as laid out by Washington's farewell. This is why you'll see the paleos making friends with Euro-types. The Europeans base their foreign policy on weakness, as do the paleos. As for Washington, if he lived longer, until America was stronger, he would probably have modified his views and endorsed America's first war against terror, the Tripolian Wars against the Barbary States.)
3. Refusal to accept that politicians need to appeal to those moderate swing voters to win.
4. Smaller government with minimal to no deficits.
Personally, I would say I am a neo-con on 1-3 except that neo-con is really a term of insult used by our adversaries. On 4 I am paleo.
To Know what the current paleocon brain farts are, follow the link to the orignal article in the New Haven Advocate and open some of the links therein to Chronicles, VDare and the other paleocon sites.
As goes paleoconservatism so goes Pat Buchanan — and vice versa.
Pat's direct-mailing lists of paleocons is his and Bay's meal ticket.
In case you haven't noticed ~ we're at war!
Find someone else to play your juvenile games with ~ keep whining and enjoy your misery ~ I'm not sharing it with you!
Bye!
We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, .05% third party fringees, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!
"Are called"? Who calls them "paleoconservatives"?
The first definition of "conservative" in the dictionary is "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change."
I'm not sure American conservatives--who favor "traditional views and values" and tend "to oppose change"--need be called anything other than simply "conservative" to distinguish them from others who refer to themselves by the word, "neoconservative."
Further, the neologism, "neoconservative," seems a strange construction:
Do "neoconservative" people have a new way of "Favoring traditional views and values" and a new way of "tending to oppose change?"
In fact, I wonder if we shouldn't be suspicious of anyone who hides behind such a strained use of language as the seemingly oxymoronic, "neocoservative."
It seems to be a kind of doublespeak.
Exactly what kind of people are these self-styled "neocoservatives" anyway?
Isn't there a simpler word to describe them?
It's an appellation which the paleos coined to describe themselves.
Ah, I see. Because I don't support these wars that necessarily makes me part of the problem. Is that it? I'm not changing the subject. The subject is neocons. Perle, Wolfowitz, and Kristol's cronies over at the PNAC advising the foreign affairs of this nation of states with far reaching and vague calls for 'global leadership'. Tell us AmishDude. In your words what constitutes 'global leadership'? Bombing those that disagree with this nation of states into submission? Even if they do not represent a clear and present danger to our nation of states?
Let me make it perfectly clear for you without stooping to the innuendoes of 'troll-like'. If this nation of states is not directly threatened by the actions of another nation, then there is no reason to get involved with 'regime change' or whatever the Wilsonians are calling it today. That's not my view. That's the view of the men who founded this nation of states and signed the document our leaders used to follow
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.