What is a definition of "neo-conservativism"?

Now, PennJim, you know that I call you a far-right winger who reminds me of a hippie from the 1960s--lots of money and trying to make a legal war illegal, in your case for no good reason other than personal power--in the case of the hippie in order to avoid the draft.

 

Well, again you've got it all backwards.

I don't have lots of money.

Congress never declared war on Iraq.

I can't fathom any possible way I can gain personal power by posting my opinion on the BB...not to mention the fact that personal power is not something that interests me.

 

Oh, you say over and over that you are a martyr to those who oppose the CP and therefore are motivated by hatred so I suppose that you want power by controlling American foreign policy just like the hippies tried to get power since the 1960s.

Of course, Congress gave the power to act in Iraq to President Bush. That is one of the big lies about the Vietnam and now the Iraq war. It was a big lie against Truman and the Korean war.

So you are a far-right winger with a martyr complex who says that non-CP members hate him. You must be very rich to support a waste of time like Peroutka, an Easterner as you are. Why are all Easterners snobs? The East is crowded, dirty, and expensive.

 

Wrong again. You're consistent if nothing else.

Not only have I not said over and over that I'm a martyr, I've not even said it once. I'm not a martyr of any sort.

Technicaly you are correct that congress gave the President power to act in Iraq...but that's just the problem...they illegally delegated their responsibility to the administrative branch. War making powers are legally congress's, not the predsident's. Maybe it's not Bush's fault for accepting it as much as congress's fault for handing it over.

Most non-CP members do not hate me. I wonder about you, though.

"All Easterners snobs"...now, that's quite a claim. I guess it's a matter of opinion.

Why would you have to be rich to support Peroutka? I spent less than $500 doing it, and could have done it for free.

Can't you get anything right?

 

The war is legal.

You yourself have said that you are hated because you are a member of the CP. You have thereby implied that to oppose your ideas is to hate you. The goblins will get you if you don't watch out. If I were you, I would take my cookies and quit posting for the CP.

You have to be pretty rich to throw one-red cent away on a nutburger like Peroutka, a snobbish Easterner lawyer, who attacks by saying that his own President and his own military are engaged in an illegal war--implying that they are war criminals just as the Canadian lawyer is charging in British Columbia courts.

 

Why are you afraid of a party that received so few votes CMG? That seems to be your only topic.

I love the way you think anyone who voted for Peroutka is filthy rich. Whenever I read that and see that car I drive and the house I rent I have to laugh.

 

Yes, apparently there are a few, like you, who hate people associated with parties that you don't agree with. But that DOES NOT imply that anyone who disagrees with me hates me. It's just a few such as yourself who seem to hate prople.

Wow, according to this post and a previous one, you despise "Easterners". That's a lot of people to hate, CMG. How do you manage?

 

To answer your questions, the CP is a disgusting party because they wrongly call the war illegal, which threatens the President of the United States and the troops with war crimes charges.

They are rich people if they have money to donate to such as cause as Peroutka's.

Why do you accuse me of despising Easterners just because I say they are snobs? The East is crowded, dirty, and expensive. That is a good place for snobs.

 

Just found this Bro Curtis thought maybe you'd like a look at it.

http://pnac.info/

 

Sorry Bro Curtis I see now that you didn't start the thread. My apologies.

 

Interesting site, poncho.

 

Here's an article by Irving Krystol.

From The Weekly Standard

Who could give a better definition than him?

 

I am not a neo-conservative. I do not like FDR's policies and morals. Nor do I care much for Teddy Roosevelt by the time he became a Bull Moose. And I still admire Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower. As for Barry Goldwater, I think that he was a cultural liberal or something.

Most of all I do not like big government. Here is where Bush has failed us the most. He has not made an effort to scale back government. If he wants to grow an area such as the CIA, then he should get rid of another area. I dislike federal aid to education; better to cut federal taxes deeply and let the states raise taxes to fund their own educational system.

No, Reagan was right; I am from the government and I'm here to help you is a frightening phrase. The government is supposed to punish evil but it tends to punish good.

Kristol's article is interesting.

 

Update on the whole Novak article issue:

<Non-working overly long link deleted for the sake of viewing the thread>

[ December 10, 2004, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Actually the leftists use the prefix "neo" which means new as an epithet.

 

Most of us are probably poor church mice. I didn't see anyone who looked wealthy at the CP meeting in Nashville. Some people looked like they came down out of the hills (no offense intended to my hillbilly WV/KY cousins, ya'll). Some even looked like Colonel Sanders. No one had on minks, Rolexes, or jewels dripping. But I guarantee ya one thing for sure - they all probably pack heat.

Besides, it's the Republican Party that is known for being the party of the wealthy. Is there anyone in the rank and file of the Republican Party who doesn't have a nice portfolio?

Here - a nice website for all my rich Republican friends:

http://www.fool.com/

[ December 09, 2004, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

I'd say that any investments in the Carlyle group or actual military contractors would be a safe bet for the next hundred years or so.

 

Imagine supporting folks like the Bushes and Dick Cheyney, and casting stones at a party who's biggest tactical problem is lack of funds for being "rich people".

Only with a log in your eye.

 

You CP people are out of touch with reality. You have concentrated so much on destroying Bush with charges of illegal wars and whispers of war crimes that you have missed the day-to-day fact that the Democrats are now the party of the wealthy like George Soros and like all of those Hollywood elete.

One has to be quite wealthy to spend time and/or to spend money on a flag burner like Peroutka.

Some of you cannot post on any subject without taking a shot at Bush. Kerry and the same-sex marrying Libertarians you love.

May you get nothing but a lump of coal for Christmas.

 

Why do you keep making this ludicrous charge?

Why are youy so fearful of a party that could only muster up 130,000 votes in the whole country?