Face it, most of the elected "public servants' that supposedly serve their constituents in our nations Capital are bought and payed for by lobbyists. Party ideology matters not to most of em. It's simply a vehicle to get their ass into office and set up on the public dole.
Want proof, I'll give ya proof:
The proposed 2009 Federal Budget relative to the 2008 Federal Budget.
Take the time to peruse that interesting illustration. While doing so, pay close attention to the percentage of gain or loss certain programs received. Keep in mind which programs, departments, etc. are "traditional" Republican(conservative) planks, and which ones are the "traditional" Democrat (liberal) planks.
So what did y'all see? Anything surprising? Anything get cut that you wouldn't expect to get cut given a Democratic controlled Congress and White House? Or did anything get raised that was surprising in given those same circumstances?
Let's just say, that if I was employed by a manufactured opinion outlet of any medium or ideological lean I would be set to craft my propaganda for the next 6 months from that illustration alone. Take an hour to gather some official corroboration and let the spin begin!
Unfortunately for the Citizens of this once great country what that illustration illustrates is this: WE THE PEOPLE ARE BEING USED AND ABUSED!
Sadly, most in this country are too stupid and brainwashed to comprehend that fact. They lap up the inane propagandist drivel that is fed to them and then go right on perpetuating the very system that oppresses them.
Anyway, I welcome any and all comments. Please feel free to rant, rave, discuss, question or mock this post. That is until the new Cyber Czar shuts us down as a national security threat and sends us to prison. :-)
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.
- Thomas Jefferson
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Too bad
June 17, 2009 - 00:56 ET by WhichWingHillyBillyKing, I applaud your work and the point you are making, but the folks on Newsbusters are usually only interested in chasing their traditional boogeymen: Liberals. Leftists. Democrats. They cannot see fault within their own ranks. They refuse to do so. They are exactly what they scream about and don't you dare point it out to them.
Your thread will fall on deaf ears because you have not provided them with an acceptable scapegoat that they can all chime in and bash in unison.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Weak
June 17, 2009 - 12:02 ET by UnsaneIf a literacy test was required to post on NB, you would fail every time. People on NB (myself included) have ripped on Republicans the whole time I have been here for three years for all sorts of failings. If you read NB or knew how, you would know that. For reasons such as what HillybillyKing has outlined, I have not ever swung my weight behind a political party, just candidates.
Funny how you whine this: Your thread will fall on deaf ears because you have not provided them with an acceptable scapegoat that they can all chime in and bash in unison when you have YOUR OWN scapegoats you constantly beat up (such as the Federal Reserve, an organization you ascribe more power to than God).*
*It should be noted here that the notion of turning the Federal Reserve into a regulating agency as His Majesty The Shahinshah proposes makes me ill as they have a big enough task at hand doing what they do now.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Funny how I've read plenty
June 20, 2009 - 15:32 ET by G. MayFunny how I've read plenty of criticism of conservatives, righties, and republicans on this very site. I don't suppose you see the term "RINO" used on these forums with reckless abandon.
This makes your statement patently untrue (it's not like you can't go read the archives or anything), your observational skills impaired (ironic, given your signature), or your reading comprehension questionable.
Or you could just be lying.
The WW MO primer
June 24, 2009 - 07:47 ET by UnsaneWhichWhine mostly simply refuses to read. Unless of course, he is reading a kook website which supports his views, or anything by his God, Ron Paul.
He's probably gone away now for 6-8 months, hoping everyone on NB forgets him. Then he will begin with the same whines again. They will all regurgitate the following: "The dollar has lost 96 cents of its value since 1913; the Fed is a private bank; we have 700 bases all over the world; the military creates terrorists and makes the rest of the world hate us; we spend a trillion a year on the military; we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined (WhichWhine can't be bothered to look at GDP stats to put that in perspective; North Korea probably spends 70% of GDP on defense while the United States MIGHT spend 3%); the United States is a fascist, evil country because I can't use my yummy yummy yummy drugs...." And so on.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
WOW
June 25, 2009 - 06:11 ET by WhichWing"The dollar has lost 96 cents of its value since 1913; the Fed is a private bank; we have 700 bases all over the world; the military creates terrorists and makes the rest of the world hate us; we spend a trillion a year on the military; we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined...."
This is probably as close as you have ever come to accurately portraying my position, then you had to throw it away on this:
"the United States is a fascist, evil country because I can't use my yummy yummy yummy drugs...."
You were so close to being honest, damn.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Simple solutions
June 29, 2009 - 11:34 ET by UnsaneYou whine endlessly about how the Federal Reserve is the locus of the world's evil because a dollar in 1913 is worth 4 cents today. Here's a much simpler solution than destroying the Fed and making the United States a global financial laughingstock, in your Quixotic pursuit of something not ever found in 6000 years of human civilization (currency that never ever changes in value, that is):
Stop sticking money in your mattress. Go out and invest it for a change.
As for the military: you ought to be thanking them every last Monday in May, and every November 11. Without them, and those considerably far less than 700 military bases worldwide (stop trying to argue with what I have seen), and that $500-600 billion spent per year on them, you would be in a mass grave somewhere. By the way, the side you support in the War on Terror is very unsympathetic to drug users. They actually KILL druggies simply for being a druggie.
And that expenditure on the military is CHEAP. We spend $500-600 billion every year to keep the Stars and Stripes flying. AND you still get to buy countless consumer goods and can hit a supermarket for all the food you can possibly want. North Korea spends far less and their people are eating tree bark, and by the way, the North Korean government could care less.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Plenty, eh?
June 25, 2009 - 06:29 ET by WhichWingI think it really comes down what you or I have personally witnessed. I know what I've seen and was being truthful in my post. Many of these people have attacked me for pointing out that Republicans have been spending just as badly as Democrats. Unsane is STILL saying I hate America for opposing the War in Iraq. I make my arguments against the drug war from basic libertarian ideas and I'm attacked from every side and called everything BUT a libertarian or conservative.
The people that have treated me and others this way are not interested in political discussion. They want name-calling, boogeyman hunting. Anything that isn't their positiong IS liberal or leftist in their view. Those are the people I was referring to in my post, and I've seen a great many of them.
And like I said, evidence
June 26, 2009 - 02:29 ET by G. MayAnd like I said, evidence to the contrary is all. over. this. website.
You're either ignoring it, or incapable of recognizing that which doesn't support your preconceptions because it demolishes your petty argument. Either way, you lose. Period.
And I would attack your views as well since you say that Unsane's post about you thinking "the military creates terrorists" is close to accurately portraying your views. Rational discussion with you seems difficult given your penchant for completely ignoring readily available evidence that torpedoes your arguments. It becomes pointless when you hold asinine views on our military and terrorism.
Make my case for me...
June 26, 2009 - 06:55 ET by WhichWingSee now, this is exactly what I don't like about Unsane and the way she distorts the views of people that she disagrees with. And you should recognized that I quoted her, and would have chosen another way to say it than 'the military creates terrorists.' In fact, here is how I said it yesterday in another thread: "I have posted many times about how I believe that the primary reason we are targets of the terrorists we fight today is a result of our foreign policy." Does that make a little more sense than the over-simplification that you and her are spreading? Unsane gets the 'military creates terrorists' from a statement like 'Our policies are used as a recruiting tool by terrorists.'
So, would you like to know my views from me, or do you want to continue as you have here, repeating fallacious statements and outright lies?
And I stand by what I said to start with. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that there are posters on this site that see the fraud that is being carried out by the Republican party and neo-conservatives (Unsane thinks using that word makes me an anti-Semite). But the majority are not interested in looking at the mistakes being made by the leaders of the conservative or libertarian movements. Questioning foreign expenditures on this site makes you a 'military hater.' Or perhaps it means that you want a 'weak, whiny, toothless nation.' But it has never, in my long experience on this site, meant that you were concerned about spending and taxes.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
I didn't distort or
June 26, 2009 - 13:31 ET by G. MayI didn't distort or oversimplify a thing. I was simply responding to something you said, or more accurately - didn't deny, in this thread. Not another thread. Strive for a little (ok, a LOT) more clarity in your writing instead of finger-pointing.
And stand by what you said all you want when you're categorically wrong. There is no way to prove your assertion about "no criticism", however there is plenty of evidence to disprove it. Choosing to defend the indefensible is just silly.
(Everything below is just spelling things out)
Let's take your original comment: "They cannot see fault within their own ranks. They refuse to do so."
Here's a recent example. In and after every story about Gov. Sanford, he has been met with almost universal scorn from the NB community. It's safe to say he is well within "ranks" here at NB, but golly, according to WhichWing - "They cannot see fault within their own ranks. They refuse to do so."
It was this original comment of yours that I was responding to. Note that since your assertion is demonstrably false, you have since morphed your position to (and I'm paraphrasing here): "The community attacks me when I disagree with them." While this may or may not be true, it is not what you said originally and not what I was responding to. I suspect you realize that your original comment was indefensible, are just not willing to admit it and are trying to morph it into something with more solid footing. You're obviously not unintelligent and should therefore not require things spelled out to you in such agonizing detail.
I suspect it is because you are guilty of the very thing you're railing against - not seeing your own faults. Something we're all guilty of from time to time.
First of all, it was not
June 27, 2009 - 06:41 ET by WhichWingFirst of all, it was not you that distorted or oversimplified, it was Unsane. It was you that repeated it as if it were truth, and then responded in a righteous manner. I see you've gone out of your way to avoid commenting on my actual position concerning the distorted and oversimplified statement. I can only imagine that you've done this because your assertion that I "hold asinine views on our military and terrorism" was demonstrably false.
It seems you overlooked a word in my original post that may have led to your indignation. "...folks on Newsbusters are usually only interested in chasing their traditional boogeymen: Liberals. Leftists. Democrats." That's alot different than "no criticism." (Not sure why you put quotations on that, I looked back and couldn't find where I had said that.)
My statement holds more truth than that of yours quoted above, and the one you chose to repeat in your ealier response, even though you were not familiar with the facts of the matter.
I should add here, in all fairness to Unsane, that his original statement, that I said was close to accurate, looks like it was made for the sake of brevity, but you took it literally and used it to insult me without ever having conversed with me.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
I didn't repeat anything.
June 27, 2009 - 17:44 ET by G. MayI didn't repeat anything. Unsane said something, and you said he was actually close to your position. You didn't clarify a thing he said, only that he was close. YOU failing to clarify after saying HE was close doesn't equate to ME repeating a thing. Also, me pointing that fact out is not righteous or indignant, it's a simple observation.
Let me revise my statement about discussion with you being pointless because of your views. While I may disagree with your views, they're rational. It's your difficulties with the language that make discussion with you near pointless.
It was only after I pointed out your gaffe that you attempted to clarify. I haven't gone out of the way for anything. You clearly misrepresented yourself and now you're trying to shift blame to me for your difficulties with your own language. Why would I comment on your position now? You have since clarified. Good, I'm glad. It's comforting to know you're not insane. But don't blame me for your failure in the first place.
And yes, your after the fact clarification does make my assertion that your opinion was asinine demonstrably false. Again, after the fact.
I have not shown indignance at all, that's just you projecting.
So on to the real topic at hand after a bunch more spelling out that really shouldn't be necessary...
I will quote you again since you apparently can't find it in your first post on this thread right after the line you just quoted:
"They cannot see fault within their own ranks. They refuse to do so."
Can you see that? Right there in your first post? Care to explain how that doesn't mean "no criticism? I'll patiently wait for your linguistic contortions on this one.
Guess you got me, I should
July 4, 2009 - 08:44 ET by WhichWingGuess you got me, I should of used usually in each instance. Here is a corrected version, then you and I will be square:
HillyBillyKing, I applaud your work and the point you are making, but
the folks on Newsbusters are usually only interested in chasing their
traditional boogeymen: Liberals. Leftists. Democrats. They usually cannot
see fault within their own ranks. They usually refuse to do so. They are
usually what they scream about and don't you dare point it out to them.
Pretty childish use of
June 29, 2009 - 11:24 ET by UnsanePretty childish use of pronouns there. Not to mention fairly unoriginal.
"I have posted many times about how I believe that the primary reason we are targets of the terrorists we fight today is a result of our foreign policy." How is this NOT "the military creates terrorists", being that the military is an instrument for the conduct of our foreign policy? By the way, it makes no sense whatsoever. Do you likewise blame the decision in 1940 to move the Pacific fleet from one portion of American territory - San Diego - to another portion of American territory - Pearl Harbor - for the Japanese attack on 7 December 1941?
So, would you like to know my views from me, or do you want to continue as you have here, repeating fallacious statements and outright lies? Basically, you wish it were still the 1790s and that the United States is an evil, fascist country for engaging in power projection, having an ICB, and having laws that reflect society's frowning upon the use of illicit drugs.
Questioning foreign expenditures on this site makes you a 'military hater.' Or perhaps it means that you want a 'weak, whiny, toothless nation.' Not by itself - I say this about you because when I DARE suggest the United States continue to project power around the world on the basis that the best defense is a good offense, or that the United States should always seek to defend itself and watch carefully for present and future threats, you throw an absolute fit. Then, out comes the "700 bases worldwide" (which directly contradicts the countless old and abandoned bases I have seen with my very own eyes worldwide) and your shrieks of "$1 trillion is spent on the military every year!!!" when in fact I have yet to see a single military budget even come NEAR that number. (If only we DID spend that much a year! The Constitution calls for Congress to provide for and maintain an Army and a Navy; and maybe then we could get a fleet of less costly, more efficient KC-67s to replace the KC-135s...)
But it has never, in my long experience on this site, meant that you were concerned about spending and taxes. Consult the Constitution, please.
Military spending - in the Constitution you claim to love more than anyone else.
Health care and other ways to baby people - NOT in the Constution.
Running auto makers - NOT in the Constitution.
Paying for retirements - NOT in the Constitution.
Coddling poor people with programs like Medicare - NOT in the Constitution.
But do you ever, ever bitch about those things? NO. The ONLY thing you EVER bitch about are expenditures on things CALLED FOR SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONSTITUTION - not to mention those things that keep your whiny ass FREE to relentlessly post here on NB and elsewhere about how wrong, horrible and evil it all is.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Whining
June 30, 2009 - 11:28 ET by Unsaneneo-conservatives (Unsane thinks using that word makes me an anti-Semite). Well, WhichWhine, you racist bigot, the term "neo-conservative" DOES in fact mean "Jew". Don't believe me? Then go ask a hero of yours, the 89 year old who killed a guard a few weeks ago at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. He was ALL ABOUT hatred of the "neo-cons". The guy was a hard-core anti-Semite and it is not shocking at all that he would attempt to shoot up the Holocaust Museum.
Your God hates Jews and Israel and has repeatedly made this plain. (For instance, in a resolution last year condemning repeated rocket attacks on Israel, the House voted 403-1 in favor. This was just a resolution of words that did not involve money or expenditure. Guess who the one person who voted agaisnt it was?)
Therefore, if you don't want me calling you an anti-Semite, stop using the term "neo-conservative" or any form thereof. (By the way, you are hardly the only one to come in for attacks for using that term. williams411, a whacked-out hate-filled Leftist, tossed it around like candy and was run off NB for that and other reasons.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
NEO-CONSERVATIVE.
July 4, 2009 - 08:44 ET by WhichWingNEO-CONSERVATIVE. You can call me an anti-Semite based on my use of that term if you want, but it is you that comes away looking like a fool, not me.
And if you want to use some 89 year old psycho as your dictionary, then by my guest, but again, it is you that comes was looking like a fool.
Oh, by the way, to refer to that guy as a hero of mine is pretty low, even from a f@*king idiot like yourself.
You think it is a waste of time for congress to pass a bill that grants them the authority to audit the Fed, but useless resolutions condemning one thing or the other is a wise use of time?! Or even the role of Congress?!?!?!??!!!!!!!
Therefore, trying to change the subject by baselessly labeling someone an anti-Semite is a loathsome practice. But then your a loathsome gal.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Whiny, illiterate WhichWhine
July 4, 2009 - 19:37 ET by UnsaneNEO-CONSERVATIVE. You can call me an anti-Semite based on my use of that term if you want, but it is you that comes away looking like a fool, not me. No, I come out way ahead. Live in denial all you want, but that is a term aimed at Jews.
Oh, by the way, to refer to that guy as a hero of mine is pretty low, even from a f@*king idiot like yourself. Well, both of you love the phrase "neocon" and throw it around like candy. Maybe you will take that comment as a nice little shock to the system to accept a painful truth - "neocon", neo-conservative", and like terms ALL have anti-Semitic connotations. I didn't make this up. Stop crying to me about it.
You don't like it? Don't ever use the term "neocon" ever again.
And you call me an "f-ing idiot", this after whining and crying on another thread about how I insult you. Contradictions collapse.
You think it is a waste of time for congress to pass a bill that grants them the authority to audit the Fed, but useless resolutions condemning one thing or the other is a wise use of time?! Or even the role of Congress?!?!?!??!!!!!!! This is rich! A civics-deprived little boy lecturing ME on civics? Let's see here...Congress wants to pass a law that will have them do something they should be doing all along. Gee, if this stupid waste of time is needed, then what the hell are they doing when Bernanke is testifying before Congress? Why do they hold confirmation hearings on Fed Chairmen and Governors or even bother to vote to confirm them to begin with?
It's ALL on CONGRESS and useful idiots like yourself...but here's the nasty truth:
1) WhichWhine wants to be Congress' s biggest apologist
2) WhichWhine doesn't understand ICBs and because he doesn't understand them, nor does he want to, they HAVE to be destroyed, all because HE he doesn't understand them and above all DOES NOT WANT to even begin to try to understand them
3) WhichWhine is DEEPLY ACHING for the United States to be turned into a global financial laughingstock. (Having Zimbabwe isn't enough for WhichWhine apparently)
Truth be told, resolutions like that are a bit silly, but as long as they aren't burning more money or imposing more regulations, hey, no harm no foul. But anything to deflect from the anti-Semitism you harbor, and that which your God, Ron Paul, harbors, right?
CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Curious....
July 9, 2009 - 11:41 ET by HillbillyKingUns, could you provide some links to evidence elaborating on the whole Neo-Con / Anti-semite thing?
Ok, resume your pissin match boys ;-)
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. - Thomas Jefferson
To tide you over...
July 9, 2009 - 12:30 ET by UnsaneI'll look for some links, but to tide you over:
This is fairly well-known, I have read this in various places, and even Rush Limbaugh has pointed out that "Who are the neo-cons? Jews!" In fact, he once called a caller a "racist bigot" for constantly using the term "neo-con".
I'll be back in a bit.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Well, I guess if Rush Limbaugh says so...
July 10, 2009 - 06:50 ET by WhichWingGive me a break. You and Rush are using some funny logic here, and both of you should know that there are alot of Jewish liberals, so maybe you ought to drop that term, too?
I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting for you to provide credible sources for your nonsense.
"Well, I guess if (insert U.S.-hating author name here) say so"
July 13, 2009 - 22:58 ET by UnsaneThat's okay, WhichWhine. You only quote and cite authors (when you are not plagiarizing) who passionately, deeply hate America as much as you do. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Besides, though I realize you are an extremely selfish human being (so selfish, in fact, that you are completely and totally enraged when people remind you that you are enmeshed within a society/civilization), you must realize something. It may take a modicum of maturity to grasp this (and I suspect HBK will surely sympathize with my limitations of the past days), but here goes: I do not center my life around you. Nor do I live every waking breathing minute of life thinking that I may need to quote/save some information to throw in your face at some point. I simply have way, way too many things to do to be your servant or your personal nanny.
You lecturing me on credible sources is the same as a whore lecturing me on the virtues of chastity. You do not provide credible sources - before you begin screaming like an infant, I have yet to pull out your silly BBC link (note: because I think they are credible or are a preferred source of mine does not mean I mindlessly agree with everything they say, unlike you) - so you can get off the soap box.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
HA! You become a bigger
July 16, 2009 - 06:57 ET by WhichWingHA! You become a bigger hypocrite every time you come back and post. Maybe you should just go away and never post here again. (I stole that line from you, btw.) Normally it's you trying to tell people that I've left for 6-8 months in hopes that all will forget what I have to say. And this is usually after only a couple of days.
You are a damned fool.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Another riposte
July 16, 2009 - 19:26 ET by UnsaneYou become a bigger hypocrite every time you come back and post. Really? How? I can quite easily turn that accusation on you as you demand, repeatedly, for people to look at your evidence and to take it versy seriously...but the instant one here refutes it, destroys it, or otherwise presents you with evidence that calls into question your entire world view, you run away like the intellectually dishonest coward you are.
Before you start screaming about what a hypocrite I am...I think you need to check your very own hypocrisy, and then start worrying more, a LOT more, about your critical thinking skills (or lack thereof) and your intellectual honesty (or lack thereof). If you spend more time doing that instead of running around accusing people of hypocrisy, you might get further with people here.
Normally it's you trying to tell people that I've left for 6-8 months in hopes that all will forget what I have to say. And this is usually after only a couple of days. I have to admit this is a record. You have actually hung around here for the past six weeks or so and have still yet to crawl under your rock per your usual M.O. Still, I am waiting for that day. You'll take too many shots to the head and piss off too many people and you'll just go run and hide again...it'll happen at some point.
You are a damned fool. You better not come crying to me about how poor wittle defenseless WhichWhine is picked on and insulted by the board's Big Meanies.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
This is great stuff!!
July 16, 2009 - 19:38 ET by MightyMouthI'm chompin' on Jiffy Pop while reading this thread! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I am no longer accusing you
July 17, 2009 - 07:16 ET by WhichWingI am no longer accusing you of hypocrisy. You have confirmed it. Verified it. Conceded to it. You are a hypocrite. Plain and simple. I, nor anyone else, needs to provide any more evidence of this.
You lose. Again.
July 17, 2009 - 19:27 ET by UnsaneIf you cannot specifically SHOW me how I am a hypocrite, especially after I have showed how YOU are one, you lost the argument, WhichWhine.
Now, instead of worrying about that phantom "hypocrisy" you accuse me of when you realize you haven't the fortitude or capability of facing my arguments squarely...start worrying about how you lack critical thinking skills, and how you are intellectually dishonest/cowardly. Maybe then you will become a better poster.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I trust that you'll find my
July 18, 2009 - 07:08 ET by WhichWingI trust that you'll find my response to the exact same request in the other thread, and I look forward to your thoughts on that BBC video.
The magnificent platinum one...
July 13, 2009 - 10:47 ET by HillbillyKingsent me this link....
So, what is a "Neo-Con"?
Some excerpts...
They are mostly ex-liberals, by and large out of the intellectual community. These are people who came to the realization that modern liberalism was not the kind of liberalism that they had subscribed to. They are a fairly small group of people, both in and out of government. Those who are out of government are in either the media or academia. They are influential because they promote each other. They are very skilled at that.
Oh gosh, that's not simple. Neoconservatives are persons who in domestic policy often were former Democrats who felt that conservatives had erred in not accepting the post-New Deal role of the central government. They were in their early incarnation focusing on domestic policy and were distinguishing themselves from Goldwater conservatives.
And.....
No. Unlike a lot of the people on the left, I'm not going to question the motives of people who use the phrase. I think a lot of people just use it as a short-term shortcut for anyone who supported the war. But in the mouth of some people, there is an anti-Semitic overtone. I would point to recent remarks by (Sen.) Fritz Hollings. He clearly was attempting to link support for the war to Jews who also support Israel -- and I think that's a slur.
It's not necessarily anti-Semitic. There is often an anti-Semitic twist to it, yes
So, it seems it can be a perfectly legitimate term to use AND can be a slur. It all depends on context and useage.
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. - Thomas Jefferson
Shame
July 16, 2009 - 07:00 ET by WhichWingIt's too bad Unsane was unable to provide you with something, seeing as he's been trying to label me an anti-Semite for about 2 years now, and solely based on the use of 'neo-conservative.'
Shame? Shame...on YOU
July 16, 2009 - 19:29 ET by Unsaneseeing as he's been trying to label me an anti-Semite for about 2 years now, and solely based on the use of 'neo-conservative.' Nope! I have another reason to call you an anti-Semite. I MIGHT let your throwing around of "neo-conservative" go, except for three things.
1) Your use of "neo-conservative" as a pejorative.
2) Your CONSTANT use of "neo-conservative" (until I and others called you on it).
3) The fact that your God, Ron Paul, is an anti-Semite, among other things that make him perhaps the most bigoted member of Congress.
Nice try.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Of course I use it as a
July 17, 2009 - 07:13 ET by WhichWingOf course I use it as a pejorative! Just as one might use Liberal as a pejorative. I continue to use 'neo-conservative' where it applies, you calling it out was nonsense and an attempt to avoid an unattractive label that fit you so well.
You really do look like a bigger fool everytime you try to label someone an anti-Semite over political disagreements. It's a deplorable tactic, and you really should try to maintain at least the bare minimum of decency. But hey, you are pathetic, so maybe I'm expecting too much.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Time to MAN UP
July 17, 2009 - 19:36 ET by UnsaneI continue to use 'neo-conservative' where it applies, you calling it out was nonsense and an attempt to avoid an unattractive label that fit you so well. Oh, so this is my label this week? Seems you cannot decide WHAT to label me. Sad. At least I am consistent in labeling you a reactionary...which you in fact are.
This week, I'm a "neo-conservative", last week, a "liberal", another week, a "central planner", another week, a "statist", another week, a "fascist", and so on. Can you be at least troubled to look up words and what they mean before you begin tossing them around in a bid to develop NB street cred?
In you bid to sound SO SMART, you are only making yourself look dumber.
You really do look like a bigger fool everytime you try to label someone an anti-Semite over political disagreements. It's a deplorable tactic, and you really should try to maintain at least the bare minimum of decency. But hey, you are pathetic, so maybe I'm expecting too much If only that were so. But once again, I laid out the reasons why I call you an anti-Semite, and in response, you ignore them, and whine about how I am calling you one over a "political disagreement". Not so.
1) You use a known pejorative, "neo-conservative", which can and does mean "Jewish",
2) You CONSTANTLY use it (until you were called on it), and
3) Your God, Ron Paul, is one of the biggest racist anti-Semite bigots in the House of Representatives. (Don't believe me? Go back to your very own thread, one YOU put up, called "Excerpts from 'NEO-CONNED!'")
Time to start reading, WhichWhine, and actually confronting arguments squarely. Man up, kid.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Don't you see the
July 18, 2009 - 07:10 ET by WhichWingDon't you see the similarity in all these labels? Neo-con, liberal, central planner, statist or fascist. You display aspects of them all, and I've demonstrated this to you on numerous occasions.
1,2,3 are repeats that I just responed to. (And you'll be pleased to know that I just linked to that exact "Neo-Conned!" thread in another post.)
Double-talker. "can and does mean..."
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
No, because of your nonexistent debating skills
July 18, 2009 - 19:21 ET by UnsaneDon't you see the similarity in all these labels? Neo-con, liberal, central planner, statist or fascist. You display aspects of them all, and I've demonstrated this to you on numerous occasions. Actually, no you haven't, and thank you once again for showing me that you need to be taught how to read.
1,2,3 are repeats that I just responed to. As you responded to them pretty miserably, I needed to re-post them. (And you'll be pleased to know that I just linked to that exact "Neo-Conned!" thread in another post. Awesome. This way we can all see what an anti-Semite your hero is. That last point to me is key. He he not gone that far he might have gotten away with it...)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Double post
July 18, 2009 - 07:10 ET by WhichWingDP
The problem I have with the
June 20, 2009 - 15:53 ET by G. MayThe problem I have with the graphic you linked is that it's only the discretionary budget. I'm also unsure of the point you're trying to make by showing an illustration of how discretionary funds are collected/allocated. I mean, I get your general premise, but I think showing the ENTIRE budget broken down in this manner would be more instructive.
I also think the center circle narrative is a bit misleading for the same reason. The statement about social security, medicare, and medicaid being excluded from any discussion of national priorities simply because they're paid for with "different" taxes is dubious at best. Taxes are taxes and we're all paying them to some degree, regardless the intent of the taxes.
Thanks....
June 21, 2009 - 20:07 ET by HillbillyKingFor the input G.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937