Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 295230" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>As to the first part about taxpayer money, EZ take what I'm about to say as a compliment and see it as a dig towards the lobsterbacks. I use the term lobsterbacks instead of Neo-Cons as someone hollers foul or anti-semetic and the term lobsterback was what the tories were called in revolutionary times as they were loyal to the King and to empirical rule and agression! Since they have their monarch in our own King George and want American empire, I figure the term is a dead on match!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>OK, now to my point.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>GEEZ, this coming from a <span style="font-size: 18px"><strong><u>"LIBERAL!"</u></strong></span> </p><p>You lobsterbacks should be ashamed!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>Nice job there EZ!</p><p> </p><p>As to the point about conservatives being about limited gov't and cutting spending? You are correct, true,traditional conservatives are that way and they aren't about creating a market with the gov't through force via a monopoly and turning it over to a private concern either as we see these days.</p><p> </p><p>That said you might take some time to investigate further the beliefs of what is called paleo-conservativism or early on classical liberalism (same thing) or constitutionalist thinking and then compare that to what is called conservative today. Today's conservatism has more in commom with the nationalism of fascism and the economics of Trotskism IMO. The authocratic rule of nationalistic Wilson/FDR was married with the economic beliefs of Leo Strauss via Irving Kristol and other former Trotskites via the politics of Nixon, the highjacked Reagan era via Bush 1 and of course our own disasters of Clinton 1 and Bush 2. Yeah, IMO Clinton was more Neo-Conservative than a paleo-liberal in the democrat party tradition. </p><p> </p><p>Odd as it sounds, lots of paleo-liberals and paleo-conservatives (both favor individual liberty, against American empire and as your are showing the belief in fiscal responsibilty) have found each other and a kindred friendship in the Ron Paul camp and this scares the be-Jesus out of the party heads as this disease could grow in the elections ahead into a full manifestation. Paul's campaign is not about winning the WH but about setting alliances as the 64' Goldwater campaign did which set the table for Reagan to emerge in 76' and then get elected in 80'. That's why Ron stays the course! Not championing Ron but rather pointing what to look for in the future as the 2 dynastic parties merge together in policy and an underground political swell of traditional opposites join forces and come out ready to fight as a team!</p><p> </p><p>I told some of you Ron wasn't out to get elected but being principled he can take a defeat now knowing he may set the table for those in 20 years. That's why he stays in the game.</p><p> </p><p>OK D, where are you at? to quote a fav. wrestler from my youth years, Dusty Rhodes.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>Again, way to go EZ on the above comments! Keep em coming! I might even not try and sell you beach property in Kansas!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy2.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy2:" title="Happy2 :happy2:" data-shortname=":happy2:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 295230, member: 2189"] As to the first part about taxpayer money, EZ take what I'm about to say as a compliment and see it as a dig towards the lobsterbacks. I use the term lobsterbacks instead of Neo-Cons as someone hollers foul or anti-semetic and the term lobsterback was what the tories were called in revolutionary times as they were loyal to the King and to empirical rule and agression! Since they have their monarch in our own King George and want American empire, I figure the term is a dead on match! :happy-very: OK, now to my point. GEEZ, this coming from a [SIZE=5][B][U]"LIBERAL!"[/U][/B][/SIZE] You lobsterbacks should be ashamed! :happy-very: Nice job there EZ! As to the point about conservatives being about limited gov't and cutting spending? You are correct, true,traditional conservatives are that way and they aren't about creating a market with the gov't through force via a monopoly and turning it over to a private concern either as we see these days. That said you might take some time to investigate further the beliefs of what is called paleo-conservativism or early on classical liberalism (same thing) or constitutionalist thinking and then compare that to what is called conservative today. Today's conservatism has more in commom with the nationalism of fascism and the economics of Trotskism IMO. The authocratic rule of nationalistic Wilson/FDR was married with the economic beliefs of Leo Strauss via Irving Kristol and other former Trotskites via the politics of Nixon, the highjacked Reagan era via Bush 1 and of course our own disasters of Clinton 1 and Bush 2. Yeah, IMO Clinton was more Neo-Conservative than a paleo-liberal in the democrat party tradition. Odd as it sounds, lots of paleo-liberals and paleo-conservatives (both favor individual liberty, against American empire and as your are showing the belief in fiscal responsibilty) have found each other and a kindred friendship in the Ron Paul camp and this scares the be-Jesus out of the party heads as this disease could grow in the elections ahead into a full manifestation. Paul's campaign is not about winning the WH but about setting alliances as the 64' Goldwater campaign did which set the table for Reagan to emerge in 76' and then get elected in 80'. That's why Ron stays the course! Not championing Ron but rather pointing what to look for in the future as the 2 dynastic parties merge together in policy and an underground political swell of traditional opposites join forces and come out ready to fight as a team! I told some of you Ron wasn't out to get elected but being principled he can take a defeat now knowing he may set the table for those in 20 years. That's why he stays in the game. OK D, where are you at? to quote a fav. wrestler from my youth years, Dusty Rhodes. :happy-very: Again, way to go EZ on the above comments! Keep em coming! I might even not try and sell you beach property in Kansas! :happy2: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
Top