The Liberal's Go To Guy, John McCain

Perhaps you would like a mirror?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

It's all right there.

 

No: a Neocon is a specific school of thought. See previous post to carpro - should be the one directly above this.

As for Hannity's hate hotline, only a Hannity listener would know what this is. Does this mean you listen to Sean Hannity? I wouldn't want to simply assume you are, but that would certainly make sense.

 

First it was Bob Dole, now you are introducing the term "Neo-Nazi" into this discussion (which also has no place here).

Would it be possible to stick to the subject at hand?

 

Do you have a source. I certainly do.

 

A source for what? McCain is a Neocon. Why are you having so much difficulty with this?

You didn't answer my question, by the way.

 

I did not realize my question was that complicated. Do you have a source for your definition of neocon. And I didn't answer your question because the answer is obvious.

 

It isn't complicated.

Did you read post # 61 in this thread?

NO, I don't want to assume anything about anyone. I asked you a simple question: do you listen to Sean Hannity? I am not simply coming up with an answer - that is why I asked you. It isn't a hard question.

 

Do you really want to source out wiki? I will just consider the source.

 

Ah, so just like carpro, all you can do is attack the source.

Two great sources will require you to go to your public library.
Read Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, by Anne Norton
Or you could read On the Democratic Idea in America, by Irving Kristol

I would loan you my copies but I am in Virginia.

And you still didn't answer my question. I guess we will never really know. If you do listen to Hannity, it makes sense that you would think that McCain is a liberal though.


Perhaps you want the unbiased [long pause................................... :laugh:] opinion of conservapedia

http://www.conservapedia.com/Neoconservative

Sorry: I can't stop laughing.....

 

You considering a source? Now that is rich.

 

This is EXACTLY why I can't stand to post here.

<snipped>

<snipped>

 

That is because he is what I call a net warrior,only here to stir the pot and report back to HQ:smilewinkgrin:

 

AND YET, you grace us with these new albeit unrelated topics.

A point worth noting is that I am not the one who introduced Sean Hannity into the discussion. Go back and read it for yourself.

Perhaps you are having diffuculty with reading comprehension. If you will noticed, I ASKED you, I didn't tell you. You even did me the favor of reproducing my question for me.

Is this a threat? Hmmmm......
I guess we are dealing with a maturity factor. You are right here though, I am indeed a LIBERAL. At least you got that right.

 

Perhaps this point has evaded you, but that is the point. Wikipedia is making an attempt to keep it simple. I thought everyone knew that.
If you have indeed "studied" neoconservatism (and please note that "studied" was your word, not mine), then you would know that McCain is a Neocon.

Wow: this should come as quite a surprise to Irving Kristol and Leo Strauss.

 

Who's "us"? You can't even seem to understand that I don't care what you think a "neocon" is. It's a slur, so you like it.

Perhaps you still have a problem with basic manners.

No, but you're probably are whining that it's one to the moderators here. And you still don't what you're talking about.

A NEOLIB you mean. :flower:

Forever. Laterz, NEOLIB


[/ignore]

 

No, it is NOT a slur. You really don't understand that term, do you?

Well, let's see: I asked you to refrain from introducing topics into the discussion, that you stick to the subject at hand. Your terse response was really more indicative of a lack of "basic manners," wasn't it?

HUH?

Yeah, right. It's quite apparent that really have no grasp of this subject.

Ah, yes: this must be what you mean by "basic manners."

Your posts really do say more about you than they do about me......

 

Wasn't 777 banned for this type of behavior before?

 

You haven't really studied this topic, have you?

It "appeals" to me because it's accurate. Much like every single discussion you join, you offer nothing but accusations and opinion, but nothing in terms of evidence to support anything you claim.

You really are starting to look foolish, carpro. Don't you ever get tired of that?

By chance, did you look at the article at conservapedia?
[Long pause.................................................. :laugh:]
Conservapedia is proof that anyone can put anything out on the internet.
The author of this article is either:
1. WOEFULLY ignorant and/or inept
2. Deliberately attempting to mislead the reader.

Go down to the bottom of the page and look at the "sources" that are listed.
Pay close attention to number two. It reads:

This is completely false, which explains why there is no source listed for this wildly inaccurate statement.

Here is an article from azcentral.com from August 11, 2006:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/special3/articles/0811mccain-advisers-ON.html
Read the article, and pay close attention to the list of McCain's advisors at the bottom.
Under "Foreign Policy," the list includes William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Robert Zoellick, Richard Armitage and Eliot Cohen, among others. Kristol and Kagan are identified as Neocons in the article at conservapedia!

I am inclined to believe that this is a result of woeful ignorance/ineptitude, but I cannot rule out a deliberate attempt to mislead. Either way, this shows that conservapedia has neither credibility nor objectivity. If you read the article on the Neoconservatives at wikipedia, it is arguably more balanced and clearly more accurate.

Now, if McCain is not a Neocon, as you seemingly claim, why have some of the heavyweights from the Neocon camp joined his campaign as advisors?