UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> attn: thirdleg, marck, and other neocons


11/4/08 11:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3399
 
Now that McCain is going down in a richly deserved humiliating defeat, do any of you regret the roles that you and others of your ideological bent had in trying to marginalize Ron Paul and defeat his nomination?

In this country, there are three major issue-positions in the public that have roughly 60% support: Iraq War(anti), Immigration(restrict), Bailout(against). Ron Paul was on the side of the majority of the public on these issues. John McCain was against them. You might be able to quibble and rationalize, but you can't deny that there's a compelling argument that Paul would have been the stronger general election candidate purely on the strength of his views.

So let me ask you, are you happy with an Obama presidency or do you maybe feel some regret about opposing the man who might have stopped him?
11/5/08 6:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3401
ttt
11/8/08 6:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3406
ttt
11/19/08 10:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3413
ttt
11/24/08 10:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3419
ttt
12/1/08 11:27 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3423
ttt
12/2/08 4:41 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Joe Ray
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/24/00
Posts: 51843
They are ducking this thread just like they have all ducked meeting me in the ring to settle our differences in no- holds-barred mortal combat.
12/4/08 1:58 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3425
I know. :-)
12/4/08 3:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 21843
I'll take a shot...

Now that McCain is going down in a richly deserved humiliating defeat, do any of you regret the roles that you and others of your ideological bent had in trying to marginalize Ron Paul and defeat his nomination?

No. Ron Paul's ideology is fatally flawed and potentially devestating to our country. I would rather have Obama as President than I would Ron Paul.

You might be able to quibble and rationalize, but you can't deny that there's a compelling argument that Paul would have been the stronger general election candidate purely on the strength of his views.

Of course I can deny that. It's a ridiculous assertion.

So let me ask you, are you happy with an Obama presidency or do you maybe feel some regret about opposing the man who might have stopped him?

Answered above.
12/4/08 9:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3426
Hi Info:

The reason I left you out of the subject line is the fact that in another discussion we had you were honest enough to admit that you weren't a conservative of any sort. Neocons are characterized by the fact that they sell themselves as conservatives (and usually let loose outraged wails at the application of the prefix). I'm not surprised at all that YOU prefer Obama.

Information - No. Ron Paul's ideology is fatally flawed and potentially devestating to our country.


OK, I guess from my point of the view the antecedent to "our" in "our country" isn't Georgia or Israel. ;-)

Of course I can deny that. It's a ridiculous assertion.


I stated my premises (public opinion on the three arguably biggest issues of this election cycle and the fact that Ron Paul is closer to the popular positions on them than John McCain is). Where's the ridiculous part? Or is it just ridiculous because you say it is?
12/8/08 5:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12/08/08 5:35 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3428
So where are Thirdleg, Marck, and, for that matter, Big Eyed Fish? Are all of you going to be honest enough to admit your socialist leanings as Info has by saying that you prefer Obama over Paul?
12/9/08 5:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Squatdog
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 23658

 According to forum member 'Information', he is really a Liberal and his slavish devotion to neo-conservatives such as William Kristol, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz are merely a fantastic coincidence that can't be adequately explained.

Also, Wolfowitz isn't really a neo-conservative and the PNAC isn't really a neo-conservative organisation, despite expressly stating to the contrary.

12/9/08 5:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 21930
Buddhadev,

Give me another day or two and I'll answer.

Squattie,

You can either be respectful or you can have your posts deleted. Your choice.
12/9/08 5:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Squatdog
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12/09/08 5:20 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 23660
So I am incorrect in stating that you have supported Cheney, Kristol and Wolfowitz on numerous threads and that you stated that Wolfowitz wasn't a neo-conservative and the PNAC wasn't a neo-conservative organisation?
12/9/08 5:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Information
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 21931
So I am incorrect in stating that you have supported Cheney, Kristol and Wolfowitz on numerous threads and taht you stated that Wolfowitz wasn't a neo-conservative and teh PNAC wasn't a neo-conservative organisation?

I support VP Cheney on many of his initiatives and actions. I don't believe I've ever spoken about Kristol in any comprehensive manner. I support Wolfowitz on many levels.

Wolfowitz is not a Neo-Conservative, as stated by himself and many others. I've never stated that PNAC is not a Neo-Conservative organization, I stated that if someone shares a goal or a belief with PNAC it does not mean that they are a Neo-Conservative.

Now, please refrain from spamming Buddhadev's post with extraneous/non-related issues. If you would like to challenge any of the beliefs listed above please create a separate thread. Thank you.
12/9/08 8:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12/09/08 8:29 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3430
Info:

I hope you don't mind me taking Squatdog's tangent a little further to defend you a bit. :-)

Squatdog:

I don't think he's being at all dishonest about his views if he calls himself Liberal.

I think he's generally to the left of neocons on non-foreign-policy issues (he's on the record in favor of socialized medicine). I think his views are more in line with, say, The New Republic magazine: establishmentarian foreign policy (interventionist) and immigration (open borders) views and Democrat-base views on economic issues (I'm pretty sure the average Democrat is in favor of socialized medicine) with a very strong, hyper-devotional support for Israel--about as diametrically opposed to Ron Paul or, for that matter, me, as one can get.

Info isn't quite a neocon himself, but probably found a considerable amount of common cause with them throughout the Bush administration years.
12/10/08 4:46 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Squatdog
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 23662
Information - So I am incorrect in stating that you have supported Cheney, Kristol and Wolfowitz on numerous threads and taht you stated that Wolfowitz wasn't a neo-conservative and teh PNAC wasn't a neo-conservative organisation?

I support VP Cheney on many of his initiatives and actions. I don't believe I've ever spoken about Kristol in any comprehensive manner. I support Wolfowitz on many levels.

Wolfowitz is not a Neo-Conservative, as stated by himself and many others. I've never stated that PNAC is not a Neo-Conservative organization, I stated that if someone shares a goal or a belief with PNAC it does not mean that they are a Neo-Conservative.

Now, please refrain from spamming Buddhadev's post with extraneous/non-related issues. If you would like to challenge any of the beliefs listed above please create a separate thread. Thank you.


There was an extensive thread on the OG in which a number of Kristol's comically naive pre-war quotes were listed and you immediately leapt to his defence. It eventually ran to over a hundred posts altogether, so I would find it surprising that you seem to have forgotten.

As far as 'spam' goes, it was two sentences in response to the previous poster's statement regarding your political affiliation.
12/19/08 12:27 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12/19/08 12:27 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3437
Squatdog -
As far as 'spam' goes, it was two sentences in response to the previous poster's statement regarding your political affiliation.


I actually think this is a very important point for me to contend with.

Information IS indeed a liberal and the extent to which he seems like a neocon isn't so much him being dishonest, but the fact that neocons and liberals are ideological cousins.

Have a look at the following exchange in this thread:

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=forum_framed.posts&thread=802748

In this thread, Info and I argued about the positions of intervening in Darfur. Info was pro, I was con.



From: DarrylDragon Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 6/20/06 4:11 PM
Edited: 20-Jun-06
Member Since: 04/08/2002
Posts: 357
Ignore | Quote | Warn Admin | Vote Down | Vote Up

Info, FWIW my image of you has totally changed thanks to this thread. I think I have a better understanding of where you're coming from. It seems we agree on way more than disagree. thank you. L
You have ignored this user.
From: Information Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 6/20/06 4:45 PM
Edited: 20-Jun-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 11359
Ignore | Quote | Warn Admin | Vote Down | Vote Up

I'm not that bad of a guy, am I? ;) I think many people would be surprised at how often my views coincide with their own.
You have ignored this user.
From: DarrylDragon Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 6/20/06 4:53 PM
Edited: 20-Jun-06
Member Since: 04/08/2002
Posts: 360
Ignore | Quote | Warn Admin | Vote Down | Vote Up

I just think that some of your "opponents" can swing SO wildly left that you can seem more right than you are. Conversely, someone like Buddhadev has views that are SO far to the right, that it makes it clearer to see where you stand. Frankly, I thought the Declaration of Independence stated that ALL were created equal and ALL were endowed with certain unalienable rights, not just people born in the United States of America. What is so wrong about helping others secure those ideals? L


As you can see, a left-wing poster affirmed an ideological kinship with Mr. Info, and this is entirely unsurprising. The idea that America needs to have an interventionist foreign policy is fundamentally a liberal one. If you're my age (29) or older, you may recall how "main street" type conservatives were rabidly denounced by both the Clinton administration and neocons (specifically Kristol and "The Weekly Standard") for their "isolationism" due to their opposition to Clinton's interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo.

As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the Health of the State" and liberals are happy to engage in war for the reason that they love big government and government programs. Wars and nation-building are the biggest, most expensive government programs of all. What's more is that an expensive intervention in a foreign country kind cuts the legs out from under any conservative policy on the domestic front. How can a conservative argue for cutting social programs domestically while America is spending billions on schools and hospitals in Iraq?

That's how establishment Liberals use war -- to promote big government: as LBJ did with Vietnam to push the Great Society agenda. That's also why it's so much easier to find Democrats that voted for the Iraq War than it is to find Democrats who are, say, pro-life or anti-Social Security, why Obama's prosposed cabinet is overwhelmingly stacked with pro-Iraq war people, and why he chose a pro-Iraq war VP. I predict that an Obama administration will have just as many American troops on foreign soil as the Bush administration did (or maybe even many more).

The idea that the American people owe the rest of the world a favor and should be bled and impoverished to make good on it is fundamentally a liberal one. Bush's foreign policy of fighting expensive wars to spread democracy and enforce UN resolutions wouldn't be acceptable to an America where schoolchildren grow up reading Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk, or an America that studied Charles Murray and Phillipe Rushton's research on race differences in IQ and temperament (anyone who did study them wouldn't have been sold on the idea that hot-headed Arab Muslims would greet a force of foreign invaders with flowers thrown to their feet). However, it WAS acceptable to an America that's been brainwashed with a steady stream of internationalist ("Winning WWII was America's crowning moral achievement!"), egalitarian ("MLKjr was a saint!"), and statist ("FDR saved us from the depression!") propaganda.

So, basically, if you're of the Left and you're looking for someone to blame for making the Iraq war politically feasible, for the rise of the neocons, and for ideologies like Info's, you might want to start by looking in the mirror.
12/24/08 2:14 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12/24/08 11:56 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3441
When you took this ideology selector, your top result was neocon--as reported by you.

If this is incorrect, can you point to a major ideological departure that you have with what is commonly considered neoconservatism?
12/24/08 2:15 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12/24/08 2:54 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3442
(I fixed an HTML bug in my earlier post which was cutting out a lot of the text.)

thirdleg - I think you may be confused because I joke and play on people's perceptions on here.

"If this is incorrect, can you point to a major ideological departure that you have with what is commonly considered neoconservatism?"

Considering I believe pretty strongly in a right-based liberalism which condemns a good portion of the government's activities as immoral, is that a pretty significant ideological departure?


Too vague. My fault for asking a vague question.

Do you support the Iraq war, believe that the United States should guarantee Israel's security and support it financially, support the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, and believe that America should use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

Who did you vote for in the primary and in the general election? In the interest of full disclosure, my votes, were Ron Paul (GOP Primary) and Chuck Baldwin (general election) and my answers to my own questions from the previous paragraph are all "no".
12/28/08 9:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3449
Thirdleg:

OK, I was wrong in my original assessment of your ideology. If I could edit the thread title, I'd replaced your name with Big Eyed Fish's or someone similar.

In any event, I'm still curious about who you'd prefer in a hypothetical Paul vs. Obama election.

Thanks,
Buddhadev
12/29/08 2:26 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3450
By the way, I don't blame you for avoiding the forum. When I was a more active OGer from about 1998-2001, I used to think that a PoliticalGround was a great idea and would "heighten" discussion. Now I think politics is a subject that people, for various reasons, want to discuss on the OG's main index.
1/8/09 5:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3469
ttt
1/18/09 6:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3471
ttt
1/24/09 2:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3477
ttt

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.