View Full Version : NEOCON RADIO
Quote[/b] ]For nearly two decades I have listened to conservative talk radio because I used to think it spoke the truth, balanced the other so-called "leftist" media, and gave the common man a constructive outlet to vent.
It took a while but I finally realize I have been duped and so have millions of other Americans.
Conservative talk radio is mislabeled. In reality, it is Neo-Conservative Talk Radio. It exists not because it is popular but because it is necessary to the state, multi-national corporations, bankers, and the powerful bent on using the media to maintain the status quo, squash dissent, and brainwash Americans into thinking they care about the country and the common man. Neo-con talk radio gives the common man the illusion that today's conservative hosts are libertarians. They are not. Libertarians are more like the Old Right while neo-cons are the new statists, the new globalists, and a threat to true freedom.
* LINK * (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/ward-aaron1.html)
w3scm
12-07-2007, 01:32 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 06 2007,06:13)]Libertarians are more like the Old Right while neo-cons are the new statists, the new globalists, and a threat to true freedom.[/b][/QUOTE]
Leaving aside the standard lib editorial, the quote here sadly has more than a little truth to it.
As N2IZE recently observed, there isn't heck of a lot of difference between the two parties and they are BOTH wholly owned globalist subsidiaries of Big Biz.
kc2orw
12-07-2007, 02:22 PM
I commend you on being more honest and accurate in your topic titling. But I have nothing to add to this topic Pro or Con as it is what you say it is...
kg6amw
12-07-2007, 02:51 PM
Quote[/b] (w3scm @ Dec. 07 2007,06:32)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 06 2007,06:13)]Libertarians are more like the Old Right while neo-cons are the new statists, the new globalists, and a threat to true freedom.[/b]
Leaving aside the standard lib editorial, the quote here sadly has more than a little truth to it.
As N2IZE recently observed, there isn't heck of a lot of difference between the two parties and they are BOTH wholly owned globalist subsidiaries of Big Biz.[/QUOTE]
There is one basic difference. The democrats have offered little on how to win in Iraq or on terror and focusing mainly on running away.
KW4MW
12-07-2007, 03:55 PM
Well - we've had this conservative talk show vs Air America dialogue countless times before. #I see no need to go there again. #
I can truthfully say that I don't listen to conservative talk shows except for those few moments I'm in the car, dialing between stations to find some decent music. #When I push the wrong button and get a 'talk show' and I hear the same old same old diatribe coming out of the speakers it's akin to getting a fleeting glimpse of some terrible accident. #
On the other side of the coin, I can't take too much - well none really - of Oprah and her bleeding heart ilk. #I'm not denouncing the good that they do it's just that, to me anyway, the commercializing of good intentions strike me as being more than a bit hypocritical. #But that's me - your mileage may vary. #
I can't remember who said it - help me out here - but someone said that in order to control the country all you need to do is to control the 30 largest newspapers, the commerical airwaves and the money supply. #
Think about that for a few seconds.
. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #.
OK - I'll probably get creamed for this from some of you but where does over 90% of your information concerning prospective political candidates come from? #Truly - there may be a few Zedders out there that know one or two of the prospective presidential candidates personally. #Perhaps a few more have spent an hour or two in their company at the Rotary Club. #But for the most part, all we know about these people is what we read or hear from Big Media and the locals simply parrot them. #
Can you now see that Big Media can doctor an election by subliminally favoring one over the other?
Who controls Big Media? #Obviously it's not me or you. #We don't have enough money to do that. #
Pull yourself away from the two party way of thinking, get out of the liberal vs neocon rut. #Yeah I know, I piss a lot of so called liberals off on here but that's not because I'm defending neocons, it's just because liberals seem to be the ones wearing the largest set of blinders. #I'm sure I'll get some flack on that comment also - so go for it.
I digress - one of the tenets of defeating a country is the old divide and conquer concept. #Is this country divided, perhaps even polarized? #As long as we're fighting each other our attention is misplaced. # When we all set our sights on a common goal our power would be awesome and the movers and shakers know that. #It is in their best interest that we fight among ourselves. #
I contend that every US President (in my adult lifetime at least and probably a lot longer) has invisible strings reaching back to some unknown power, some call them the Illuminati. #But whatever the source, money and power controls our presidency - not the voters. #I am not a conspiracy theorist but I am capable of asking myself if I'm really hearing the truth or if I'm hearing what 'they' want me to hear. #With that in mind it is much easier to ask oneself if there is an ulterior motive involved. #
I'm a big supporter of the armed forces, you all know that. #I believe that we need them for a strong national defense. #I don't support using them as an international police force - that's a job for the inept United nations. #But quite frankly - if one does their history homework and does so by going beyond the government school text books one might come to the conclusion that very few wars were ever fought for the common good. #
We have illegal aliens pouring across our borders - we have the power and resources available to stop them if we wanted to but we don't. If we spent as much on border control as we do in Iraq, we could probably have built a concrete fence 30 feet high from the Pacific coast to the Gulf coast by now. #Ask yourself "Why is it in the best interests of the high muckety mucks to allow the wave of illegal immigration to continue"? #Apply the same reasoning to illegal drug trafficking. #if you're truly honest with yourself and you can get past party lines and your personal idealogies your conclusions may shock and anger you. #
We were appalled when those fanatics crashed airplanes into our buildings on that fateful day. #Most of us wanted a taste of revenge and so a few weeks later when our troops went after Osama in Afghanistan we cheered and applauded. #Later - we puzzled over the fact that original reports claimed that we had him bottled up in Tora Bora and capture was sure and then he made his escape good while British forces were prevented from sealing off the other end of the valley. #
Exit stage left to Iraq. #WTF Iraq? #But the media made the most of toppling Saddam, yet neither this country or any other has ever been in the dictator toppling business although there have been a few that needed toppling. #Why Saddam? #Maybe he decided to not play by the rules. #
Some of us bought into the reasons for going into iraq, WMD's. #Please note that we did for two reasons - 1. the media told us why and 2. #it was the consensus of our leaders in Washington.
The bottom line is this. #GWB is not running this country - and I don't mean that he is inept. #Quite frankly I think things would be pretty much the same if Kerry had been elected. #Recall both of them were members of the Skull and Bones society. #I think GWB does what he is told to do. #I think Kerry would have also obeyed.
Does anyone remember when GWB ducked into a meeting of the Bilderberg group a few month ago? #Doubtful since it was a small paragraph on page three of my newspaper anyway. #
Bilderberg group? #Google it!
And while you're at it look up the Federal Reserve, the Tri-lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. #Pay particular attention to the memberships. #You may come to some uncomfortable conclusions.
We're not in Kansas anymore.
KA8DKT
12-07-2007, 04:44 PM
Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ Dec. 07 2007,10:51)]Quote[/b] (w3scm @ Dec. 07 2007,06:32)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 06 2007,06:13)]Libertarians are more like the Old Right while neo-cons are the new statists, the new globalists, and a threat to true freedom.[/b]
Leaving aside the standard lib editorial, the quote here sadly has more than a little truth to it.
As N2IZE recently observed, there isn't heck of a lot of difference between the two parties and they are BOTH wholly owned globalist subsidiaries of Big Biz.
There is one basic difference. #The democrats have offered little on how to win in Iraq or on terror and focusing mainly on running away.
Ahh, another child left behind.
-gary
KA8NCR
12-07-2007, 04:56 PM
Quote[/b] (w3scm @ Dec. 07 2007,06:32)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 06 2007,06:13)]Libertarians are more like the Old Right while neo-cons are the new statists, the new globalists, and a threat to true freedom.[/b]
Leaving aside the standard lib editorial, the quote here sadly has more than a little truth to it.
As N2IZE recently observed, there isn't heck of a lot of difference between the two parties and they are BOTH wholly owned globalist subsidiaries of Big Biz.[/QUOTE]
But that isn't a standard lib editorial. We really don't know what political affiliation Aaron Ward is other than he listen to conservative talk radio and has deduced that it's a method for the uber-elite to control the masses for their own gain.
It's an interesting proposition. And yes, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
KA8NCR
12-07-2007, 05:00 PM
Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ Dec. 07 2007,08:55)]Well - we've had this conservative talk show vs Air America dialogue countless times before. I see no need to go there again.
I can truthfully say that I don't listen to conservative talk shows except for those few moments I'm in the car, dialing between stations to find some decent music. When I push the wrong button and get a 'talk show' and I hear the same old same old diatribe coming out of the speakers it's akin to getting a fleeting glimpse of some terrible accident.
On the other side of the coin, I can't take too much - well none really - of Oprah and her bleeding heart ilk. I'm not denouncing the good that they do it's just that, to me anyway, the commercializing of good intentions strike me as being more than a bit hypocritical. But that's me - your mileage may vary.
I can't remember who said it - help me out here - but someone said that in order to control the country all you need to do is to control the 30 largest newspapers, the commerical airwaves and the money supply.
Think about that for a few seconds.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
OK - I'll probably get creamed for this from some of you but where does over 90% of your information concerning prospective political candidates come from? Truly - there may be a few Zedders out there that know one or two of the prospective presidential candidates personally. Perhaps a few more have spent an hour or two in their company at the Rotary Club. But for the most part, all we know about these people is what we read or hear from Big Media and the locals simply parrot them.
Can you now see that Big Media can doctor an election by subliminally favoring one over the other?
Who controls Big Media? Obviously it's not me or you. We don't have enough money to do that.
Pull yourself away from the two party way of thinking, get out of the liberal vs neocon rut. Yeah I know, I piss a lot of so called liberals off on here but that's not because I'm defending neocons, it's just because liberals seem to be the ones wearing the largest set of blinders. I'm sure I'll get some flack on that comment also - so go for it.
I digress - one of the tenets of defeating a country is the old divide and conquer concept. Is this country divided, perhaps even polarized? As long as we're fighting each other our attention is misplaced. When we all set our sights on a common goal our power would be awesome and the movers and shakers know that. It is in their best interest that we fight among ourselves.
I contend that every US President (in my adult lifetime at least and probably a lot longer) has invisible strings reaching back to some unknown power, some call them the Illuminati. But whatever the source, money and power controls our presidency - not the voters. I am not a conspiracy theorist but I am capable of asking myself if I'm really hearing the truth or if I'm hearing what 'they' want me to hear. With that in mind it is much easier to ask oneself if there is an ulterior motive involved.
I'm a big supporter of the armed forces, you all know that. I believe that we need them for a strong national defense. I don't support using them as an international police force - that's a job for the inept United nations. But quite frankly - if one does their history homework and does so by going beyond the government school text books one might come to the conclusion that very few wars were ever fought for the common good.
We have illegal aliens pouring across our borders - we have the power and resources available to stop them if we wanted to but we don't. If we spent as much on border control as we do in Iraq, we could probably have built a concrete fence 30 feet high from the Pacific coast to the Gulf coast by now. Ask yourself "Why is it in the best interests of the high muckety mucks to allow the wave of illegal immigration to continue"? Apply the same reasoning to illegal drug trafficking. if you're truly honest with yourself and you can get past party lines and your personal idealogies your conclusions may shock and anger you.
We were appalled when those fanatics crashed airplanes into our buildings on that fateful day. Most of us wanted a taste of revenge and so a few weeks later when our troops went after Osama in Afghanistan we cheered and applauded. Later - we puzzled over the fact that original reports claimed that we had him bottled up in Tora Bora and capture was sure and then he made his escape good while British forces were prevented from sealing off the other end of the valley.
Exit stage left to Iraq. WTF Iraq? But the media made the most of toppling Saddam, yet neither this country or any other has ever been in the dictator toppling business although there have been a few that needed toppling. Why Saddam? Maybe he decided to not play by the rules.
Some of us bought into the reasons for going into iraq, WMD's. Please note that we did for two reasons - 1. the media told us why and 2. it was the consensus of our leaders in Washington.
The bottom line is this. GWB is not running this country - and I don't mean that he is inept. Quite frankly I think things would be pretty much the same if Kerry had been elected. Recall both of them were members of the Skull and Bones society. I think GWB does what he is told to do. I think Kerry would have also obeyed.
Does anyone remember when GWB ducked into a meeting of the Bilderberg group a few month ago? Doubtful since it was a small paragraph on page three of my newspaper anyway.
Bilderberg group? Google it!
And while you're at it look up the Federal Reserve, the Tri-lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. Pay particular attention to the memberships. You may come to some uncomfortable conclusions.
We're not in Kansas anymore.
I'm quoting that whole thing because I have never, ever and probably never will again, agree with what you say here as much as that. Whatever caused that stream of thought, pass a little this way.
I just have one question; what have you done with Mike and if he's not coming back, can I have his ham gear?
LIB radio is much more interesting (to LIBS).
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007....ld.html (http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/12/longtime-libtalker-indicted-on-child.html)
W4DFW
12-07-2007, 08:31 PM
I listen to conservative talk radio at times, but only when I'm driving in the car. It would be nice to once in awhile hear some Liberal Talk Radio, but that beast doesn't exist. Who wants to listen to Chicken Little crying all the time??
kc2orw
12-07-2007, 09:27 PM
Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Dec. 07 2007,16:31)]I listen to conservative talk radio at times, but only when I'm driving in the car. It would be nice to once in awhile hear some Liberal Talk Radio, but that beast doesn't exist.
What you don't get Imus yet?
kd5kfl
12-08-2007, 01:41 AM
Has anyone troubled themselves to look up "Neoconservative"?
It's one of those brain dead terms. Like when some bozo calls me "whitebread" because I'm an anglo saxon citizen. Or when an outsider demands that I refer to Indians as "Native Americans". Here in NM, surrounded by six Indian reservations, every Indian I meet calls himself an Indian. Pronounced "Injun".
The liberals around here use this bogus term as if it means "Anyone to the right of Hillary". Not necessarily so...
Per Wikipedia:
Quote[/b] ]Neoconservatism is the political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of social liberalism and the New Left counter-culture of the 1960s....
It influenced the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and the George W. Bush presidential administrations, representing a re-alignment in American politics, and the defection of "an important and highly articulate group of liberals to the other side." ( Apparently QRZ got the rest )
As a term, neoconservative first was used derisively by democratic socialist Michael Harrington to identify a group of people (who described themselves as liberals) as newly stimulated conservative ex-liberals. The idea that liberalism "no longer knew what it was talking about" is neoconservatism's central theme...
[Neo-conservatism] is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today "neo-conservatism" identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
This term, which liberals use so freely, apparently does have a clear and specific meaning. That meaning has nothing to do with the way it is used here.
It means: Former liberals who came to their senses.
Which would make "reformed neocon" of this post a vacillating tergiversatory twit.
kk7ue
12-08-2007, 02:54 AM
Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Dec. 07 2007,18:41)]tergiversatory twit.
Wow! I had to look that one up. Thanks for the lesson.
Im with ncr, Mike that was spot on! This is a good thread
W4DFW
12-09-2007, 05:51 AM
Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Dec. 06 2007,21:41)]Which would make "reformed neocon" of this post a vacillating tergiversatory twit.
PLEASE!! There are youngsters reading this forum!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
kd5kfl
12-09-2007, 06:11 AM
KW4MW, you may want read Craig Roberts books.
http://www.riflewarrior.com/#Books%20by%20Craig%20Roberts
I found the high correlation between whistleblowers and plane crashes very interesting.
ad4mg
12-09-2007, 12:08 PM
Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Dec. 07 2007,20:41)]Has anyone troubled themselves to look up "Neoconservative"?
It's one of those brain dead terms. Like when some bozo calls me "whitebread" because I'm an anglo saxon citizen. Or when an outsider demands that I refer to Indians as "Native Americans". Here in NM, surrounded by six Indian reservations, every Indian I meet calls himself an Indian. Pronounced "Injun".
The liberals around here use this bogus term as if it means "Anyone to the right of Hillary". Not necessarily so...
Per Wikipedia:
Quote[/b] ]Neoconservatism is the political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of social liberalism and the New Left counter-culture of the 1960s....
It influenced the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and the George W. Bush presidential administrations, representing a re-alignment in American politics, and the defection of "an important and highly articulate group of liberals to the other side." ( Apparently QRZ got the rest )
As a term, neoconservative first was used derisively by democratic socialist Michael Harrington to identify a group of people (who described themselves as liberals) as newly stimulated conservative ex-liberals. The idea that liberalism "no longer knew what it was talking about" is neoconservatism's central theme...
[Neo-conservatism] is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today "neo-conservatism" identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
This term, which liberals use so freely, apparently does have a clear and specific meaning. That meaning has nothing to do with the way it is used here.
It means: Former liberals who came to their senses.
Which would make "reformed neocon" of this post a vacillating tergiversatory twit.
In light of that definition (which you wholly accept as gospel), perhaps a more appropriate term for this subset of political lunatics would be "war mongering, non-conservative, morally bankrupt, religious bigots"?
Personally, as a person who leans towards most conservative values, these "war mongering, non-conservative, morally bankrupt, religious bigots" represent an insult to those values, and are a primary reason that I use the term "Neocon" freely.
These are the people who have prostituted the Republican Party for their own gain. That the Democratic Party so closely resembles the current Republican Party validates a signature I previously sported here:
Quote[/b] ]"United States of America". Area: 3,700,000 sq miles
Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
Government: Two Party Corporate Political Crime Syndicate
Chief Exports: War and Misery
In reference to the excellent post offered by Mike, I disagree with but one statement ... the liberals have nothing on the (may I abbreviate?) Neocons as far as blinders are concerned.
The English language, especially as spoken in the United States, is dynamic. I counter that the definition of "Neoconservative" has changed, by virtue of it's popular and current use, to include the political subset described by the definition I offered. Categorizing the use of the term as "brain dead" indicates a failure to understand how dynamic the language is. You cannot redefine reality by denying it.
n2ize
12-09-2007, 12:41 PM
"Neo" means new. "Neocon" is an abbreviation for "neoconservative". A person who subscribes to a new style of conservatism characterised by greed, war, hate, violence, isolationism, theocracy, and strong corporate control and a return to America pre social reforms, and a form of "unregulated free market" in which corporations set their own guidelines free of public and government intervention, as well as complete privatization of all public entities. Neocons stress corporate control over civil and individual rights. This a a stark contrast to the old school of conservatism which would be dubbed "liberal" be neoconservative standards.
kg6amw
12-09-2007, 02:15 PM
Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ Dec. 07 2007,07:51)]Quote[/b] (w3scm @ Dec. 07 2007,06:32)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 06 2007,06:13)]Libertarians are more like the Old Right while neo-cons are the new statists, the new globalists, and a threat to true freedom.[/b]
Leaving aside the standard lib editorial, the quote here sadly has more than a little truth to it.
As N2IZE recently observed, there isn't heck of a lot of difference between the two parties and they are BOTH wholly owned globalist subsidiaries of Big Biz.
There is one basic difference. #The democrats have offered little on how to win in Iraq or on terror and focusing mainly on running away.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, the success of the surge leaves the Left with a much smaller fig leaf for their defeatism.
ad4mg
12-09-2007, 02:19 PM
Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ Dec. 09 2007,09:15)]Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ Dec. 07 2007,07:51)]Quote[/b] (w3scm @ Dec. 07 2007,06:32)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 06 2007,06:13)]Libertarians are more like the Old Right while neo-cons are the new statists, the new globalists, and a threat to true freedom.[/b]
Leaving aside the standard lib editorial, the quote here sadly has more than a little truth to it.
As N2IZE recently observed, there isn't heck of a lot of difference between the two parties and they are BOTH wholly owned globalist subsidiaries of Big Biz.
There is one basic difference. The democrats have offered little on how to win in Iraq or on terror and focusing mainly on running away.
Unfortunately, the success of the surge leaves the Left with a much smaller fig leaf for their defeatism.[/QUOTE]
Are you the mindless 'bot you appear to be? The needle of your phonograph seems perpetually stuck in the same, tired, old groove.
To deliver your tired, lame message more efficiently, why not simply type over and over:
"The democrats are invested in defeat."
Oh never mind ... you do that already.
You are a perfect parrot of the EIB network.
Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Dec. 09 2007,03:19)]Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ Dec. 09 2007,09:15)]Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ Dec. 07 2007,07:51)]Quote[/b] (w3scm @ Dec. 07 2007,06:32)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 06 2007,06:13)]Libertarians are more like the Old Right while neo-cons are the new statists, the new globalists, and a threat to true freedom.[/b]
Leaving aside the standard lib editorial, the quote here sadly has more than a little truth to it.
As N2IZE recently observed, there isn't heck of a lot of difference between the two parties and they are BOTH wholly owned globalist subsidiaries of Big Biz.
There is one basic difference. #The democrats have offered little on how to win in Iraq or on terror and focusing mainly on running away.
Unfortunately, the success of the surge leaves the Left with a much smaller fig leaf for their defeatism.
Are you the mindless 'bot you appear to be? #The needle of your phonograph seems perpetually stuck in the same, tired, old groove.
To deliver your tired, lame message more efficiently, why not simply type over and over:
"The democrats are invested in defeat."
Oh never mind ... you do that already.
You are a perfect parrot of the EIB network.[/QUOTE]
Now thats funny. But, the dems are and were invested in defeat for the 2008 election. You know this to be true since it is now off the radar screen due to success.
They used the Iraq war as a club to beat up republicans and now they have put the club away, the damage is done to the republicans and world perception of an inept congress. Now the focus is back on 2008 (as it always has) because they don't want to be looked upon as the party of defeat.
This is clear to any level headed thinking person, republican or democrat. It was pure politics and damn the country.
K2WH (Neocon)
kd5kfl
12-09-2007, 04:51 PM
Quote[/b] ](which you wholly accept as gospel)
You pulled that out of an anatomical orifice; it's not your mouth.
I quoted a source. This source defined Neoconservative. The use of the term here is contrary to the definition there.
Once again a liberal conflates a quote into an imaginary acceptance as gospel truth. Another liberal admits to using the term to mean something other than the original meaning.
The source of the thought aberration that leads to liberaldom appears to be self deception. You deceive yourself into believing that quoting a quote is evidence of an epiphany. You deceive yourself into believing a word can mean what you want it to mean when it suits you.
Self deception believed is self delusion.
I won't play by your rules and pretend to delude myself into believing I can redefine "Liberal" into "Self delusional easily confused individual".
I will, instead, alter an existing word to fit current circumstances. To Wit:
Lieberal. A member of Lieberaldumb. A self-delusional individual who allows his politics to be influenced by his delusions.
ad4mg
12-09-2007, 05:09 PM
Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Dec. 09 2007,11:51)]Quote[/b] ](which you wholly accept as gospel)
You pulled that out of an anatomical orifice; it's not your mouth.
I quoted a source. This source defined Neoconservative. The use of the term here is contrary to the definition there.
Once again a liberal conflates a quote into an imaginary acceptance as gospel truth. Another liberal admits to using the term to mean something other than the original meaning.
The source of the thought aberration that leads to liberaldom appears to be self deception. You deceive yourself into believing that quoting a quote is evidence of an epiphany. You deceive yourself into believing a word can mean what you want it to mean when it suits you.
Self deception believed is self delusion.
I won't play by your rules and pretend to delude myself into believing I can redefine "Liberal" into "Self delusional easily confused individual".
I will, instead, alter an existing word to fit current circumstances. To Wit:
Lieberal. A member of Lieberaldumb. A self-delusional individual who allows his politics to be influenced by his delusions.
Ha! I must have hit a nerve. Only among the "enlightened right" found here on the 'zed am I considered a liberal. Perhaps my mistake was in the assumption that you were in agreement with the definition you provided. That was the impression lent by appearance. You seemed to rejoice in presenting the definition as derogatory towards those with whom you disagree.
As to the rest of your ramblings, they mean little to me, so I'll decline a response.
Do you consider yourself a Neocon? And if so, by which definition, the somewhat incomplete wiki, or by the amended version offered previously?
You seem terribly sensitive to my definition of today's neoconservative. It is the definition upon which I base the use of the word. Are you offended, or just grumpy? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
n2ize
12-09-2007, 05:53 PM
Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ Dec. 09 2007,07:15)]Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ Dec. 07 2007,07:51)]Quote[/b] (w3scm @ Dec. 07 2007,06:32)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 06 2007,06:13)]Libertarians are more like the Old Right while neo-cons are the new statists, the new globalists, and a threat to true freedom.[/b]
Leaving aside the standard lib editorial, the quote here sadly has more than a little truth to it.
As N2IZE recently observed, there isn't heck of a lot of difference between the two parties and they are BOTH wholly owned globalist subsidiaries of Big Biz.
There is one basic difference. #The democrats have offered little on how to win in Iraq or on terror and focusing mainly on running away.
Unfortunately, the success of the surge leaves the Left with a much smaller fig leaf for their defeatism.[/QUOTE]
The dems are merely trying to sucker votes because they know that among Americans this war has grown quite unpopular. The dems have no plans to leave Iraq. The only reason the USA is in Iraq is because corporate wants us there. No politician, dem or repub is going to go against corporate interests.
Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Dec. 08 2007,10:51)]You pulled that out of an anatomical orifice; it's not your mouth.
I quoted a source. This source defined Neoconservative. The use of the term here is contrary to the definition there.
Once again a liberal conflates a quote into an imaginary acceptance as gospel truth. Another liberal admits to using the term to mean something other than the original meaning.
The source of the thought aberration that leads to liberaldom appears to be self deception. You deceive yourself into believing that quoting a quote is evidence of an epiphany. You deceive yourself into believing a word can mean what you want it to mean when it suits you.
Self deception believed is self delusion.
I won't play by your rules and pretend to delude myself into believing I can redefine "Liberal" into "Self delusional easily confused individual".
I will, instead, alter an existing word to fit current circumstances. To Wit:
Lieberal. A member of Lieberaldumb. A self-delusional individual who allows his politics to be influenced by his delusions.
'kfl:
You do know that Wikipedia is not a quotable source?
A lot of people tend to believe that the GOP's combined party platform defines neo-conservatism, which could not be further from the truth. Neo-conservatism has nothing to do with supply-side economics or religious conservatism. It is strictly a pro-foreign intervention movement that seeks to mold the world in America’s image (i.e., the neo-conservatives are the “nation building” element within the GOP). Anyone wanting to know more about neo-conservatism should visit PNAC's website (http://www.newamericancentury.org/).
kd5kfl
12-09-2007, 10:55 PM
Quote[/b] ]You do know that Wikipedia is not a quotable source?
I couldn't find it in my 1964 World book encyclopedia.
You may want to check the other thread on QRZ about Wiki vs the encyclopedia.
Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Dec. 08 2007,16:55)]Quote[/b] ]You do know that Wikipedia is not a quotable source?
I couldn't find it in my 1964 World book encyclopedia.
You may want to check the other thread on QRZ about Wiki vs the encyclopedia.
Did you attend college? Encyclopedias cannot be used as primary sources of information.
kd5kfl
12-10-2007, 12:36 AM
So what is going to happen to me if I quote Wikipedia?
Oh, wait---NO! You're not going to TELL SANTA!
Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Dec. 08 2007,18:36)]So what is going to happen to me if I quote Wikipedia?
Oh, wait---NO! You're not going to TELL SANTA!
Tertiary sources are the equivalent of hearsay in a court of law. Hence, they do nothing to support your argument.
n2ize
12-10-2007, 03:57 AM
Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Dec. 09 2007,09:51)]Quote[/b] ](which you wholly accept as gospel)
You pulled that out of an anatomical orifice; it's not your mouth.
I quoted a source. This source defined Neoconservative. The use of the term here is contrary to the definition there.
Once again a liberal conflates a quote into an imaginary acceptance as gospel truth. Another liberal admits to using the term to mean something other than the original meaning.
The source of the thought aberration that leads to liberaldom appears to be self deception. You deceive yourself into believing that quoting a quote is evidence of an epiphany. You deceive yourself into believing a word can mean what you want it to mean when it suits you.
Self deception believed is self delusion.
I won't play by your rules and pretend to delude myself into believing I can redefine "Liberal" into "Self delusional easily confused individual".
I will, instead, alter an existing word to fit current circumstances. To Wit:
Lieberal. A member of Lieberaldumb. A self-delusional individual who allows his politics to be influenced by his delusions.
Sounds German... Der Lieberal !!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.