The term neo-conservative has been thrown around here a lot, which would suggest that it is "new." Comparatively, that would suggest that the belief of conservatives has evolved from before. If that is true, how come the liberal side has no change, because surely it has evolved. Not 50 years ago, full racial equality was considered a liberal idea as abolishing slavery was 100 years before. Why have we not yet had this term to describe political stances yet, or if it is, in fact, used, how come it is not as widespread as the opposite stance?
Cause liberals are fucking stupid, they dont think for themselves!!! And they dont deserve change!! what they deserve is extermination!! By my Glock 13 that i have the fucking right to carry!!!! the FUCKING RIGHT THAT THE CONSTITUTION GAVE ME!!!!! and the military risks there lives to keep every day!
Last edited by Dezerteagal5 (2007-02-18 09:43:41)
15 more years! 15 more years!
I'll just have to quote this before you delete it when sober.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Cause liberals are fucking stupid, they dont think for themselves!!! And they dont deserve change!! what they deserve is extermination!! By my Glock 13 that i have the fucking right to carry!!!! the FUCKING RIGHT THAT THE CONSTITUTION GAVE ME!!!!! and the military risks there lives to keep every day!
Neoliberal and Neoconservative are virtually the same thing.DesertFox423 wrote:
The term neo-conservative has been thrown around here a lot, which would suggest that it is "new." Comparatively, that would suggest that the belief of conservatives has evolved from before. If that is true, how come the liberal side has no change, because surely it has evolved. Not 50 years ago, full racial equality was considered a liberal idea as abolishing slavery was 100 years before. Why have we not yet had this term to describe political stances yet, or if it is, in fact, used, how come it is not as widespread as the opposite stance?
Most of Bush's stances (especially in foreign policy) are reminiscent of the neoliberal John F. Kennedy.
Tony Blair is typically referred to as a neoliberal, as is Bill Clinton.
Personally, I don't like neoliberals or neoconservatives, and I consider neither of them to be more "evolved." If anything, I'd say both have devolved.
So your gonna use a post that someone made while drunk as a argument, thats shows a high stance on ability of a intelligent counter argument. Congratulations moron.
Im perfectly sober
15 more years! 15 more years!
Why thank you. Have a nice day.Commie Killer wrote:
So your gonna use a post that someone made while drunk as a argument, thats shows a high stance on ability of a intelligent counter argument. Congratulations moron.
Who's the bigger moron... Someone that counters someone drunk, or someone that posts when drunk?Commie Killer wrote:
So your gonna use a post that someone made while drunk as a argument, thats shows a high stance on ability of a intelligent counter argument. Congratulations moron.
Take your time; I know how hard thinking must be for you.
Thanks, you gave me the first good laugh of the day since I can easily visualize you spraying saliva at the screen while pounding that little diatribe out on the keyboard with your knuckles.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Cause liberals are fucking stupid, they dont think for themselves!!! And they dont deserve change!! what they deserve is extermination!! By my Glock 13 that i have the fucking right to carry!!!! the FUCKING RIGHT THAT THE CONSTITUTION GAVE ME!!!!! and the military risks there lives to keep every day!
Neo-liberalism is TOTALLY different from liberalism. For a start most liberals are wary of globalisation whereas neo-liberals are advocates of it.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-18 09:53:32)
Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Cause liberals are fucking stupid
I would consider a person who makes a stereotype of a person just because they are drunk and because of that they seem to think it nullifies every other post that person has made, and then of course while drunk your thinking is hindered and in that mind set he wouldnt have to think about posting on here.Turquoise wrote:
Who's the bigger moron... Someone that counters someone drunk, or someone that posts when drunk?Commie Killer wrote:
So your gonna use a post that someone made while drunk as a argument, thats shows a high stance on ability of a intelligent counter argument. Congratulations moron.
Take your time; I know how hard thinking must be for you.
Exactly. I may prefer freer markets as a left-leaning moderate, but I don't put the same faith in global capitalism that people like Clinton and Bush do. It's like most modern politicians are lackeys to corporations more than they are representatives of the people.CameronPoe wrote:
Neo-liberalism is TOTALLY different from liberalism. For a start most liberals are wary of globalisation whereas neo-liberals are advocates of it.
For the last time!! Im not drunk!!!
15 more years! 15 more years!
I agree. When someone considers someone completely baseless just because they are liberal, that's making a "stereotype of a person that implies that every other post they make is nullified in its worth."Commie Killer wrote:
I would consider a person who makes a stereotype of a person just because they are drunk and because of that they seem to think it nullifies every other post that person has made, and then of course while drunk your thinking is hindered and in that mind set he wouldnt have to think about posting on here.Turquoise wrote:
Who's the bigger moron... Someone that counters someone drunk, or someone that posts when drunk?Commie Killer wrote:
So your gonna use a post that someone made while drunk as a argument, thats shows a high stance on ability of a intelligent counter argument. Congratulations moron.
Take your time; I know how hard thinking must be for you.
Again, who is stereotyping more: someone blasting someone as being intoxicated in their judgment, or someone calling all liberals "fucking stupid?"
Sorry, it just seemed like it. Perhaps, you were angry instead.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
For the last time!! Im not drunk!!!
How eloquent. Quoting a fatuous playground-style taunt. How deep and insightful.usmarine2007 wrote:
Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Cause liberals are fucking stupid
There actually is neo-liberalism, but it stands for an economic front as opposed to a political front. It basically calls for freeing up capital markets world-wide, also known as free trade.
Neo-liberalism suggests global capitalism be enforced through military intervention in order to protect the interests of multinational corporations, and is generally looked down upon.
Neo-liberalism suggests global capitalism be enforced through military intervention in order to protect the interests of multinational corporations, and is generally looked down upon.
This post sums up the "neo-con" mentality right here. In the past, the conservatives and liberals had generally opposing view points, but realized we were all Americans and seemed to have some modicum of respect (however small) for one another. The end goal of both sides was to find what was best for the country. If you need examples on the forum, I'd suggest looking at CameronPoe and ATG as remnants of the old school libs & cons. Those two will battle it out with facts and insight, and are still able to wish each other luck with struggles in their personal lives.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Cause liberals are fucking stupid, they dont think for themselves!!! And they dont deserve change!! what they deserve is extermination!! By my Glock 13 that i have the fucking right to carry!!!! the FUCKING RIGHT THAT THE CONSTITUTION GAVE ME!!!!! and the military risks there lives to keep every day!
The neo-con movement is based not on political beliefs, but on pure, vile hatred of the other side and blind obedience to what their beloved party tells them to think. These are the people who generally have nothing to offer aside from spewing hate-filled criticism of their worst enemies. I'm talking about what they perceive to be the greatest threat in existence to their freedom and lifestyles: not the terrorists who want to slaughter them all, but the filthy liberals who want to do obscene things like let gays marry and slow down the widening of the wealth gap.
I'm not saying the other side doesn't have their own fools blinded by hate, but (to get back on topic) the reason we don't have the term neo-lib, is that the Republicans have always been much better at marketing. The liberals had to create a new term "neo-con" to describe the fringe element of their counter-party. The neo-cons have turned the word liberal into an insult of its own. No need to differentiate the between the wacko far-lefters and the average liberal, they all want to have a huge homo-incestuous gang bang!
I wish we could all go back to just being Americans and respecting each other. JFK and Nixon travelled on the same plane to save expenses when they were running against each other for President.
Labels should only be used for the 2% of the population that it fits. Most people fall in the middle (you know.. the sane population).
Excellent post, chitty.
The funniest part of all this is that neoliberals and neoconservatives basically run both parties in America, and they mudsling at each other so persistently, yet, they really aren't that different when it comes to economic agendas.
The funniest part of all this is that neoliberals and neoconservatives basically run both parties in America, and they mudsling at each other so persistently, yet, they really aren't that different when it comes to economic agendas.
OK. Sorry.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
For the last time!! Im not drunk!!!
...but I'll have to say, it's not a good thing to be capable of such drivel when sober.
QFTapollo_fi wrote:
OK. Sorry.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
For the last time!! Im not drunk!!!
...but I'll have to say, it's not a good thing to be capable of such drivel when sober.
Since Neo-Liberalism is not what we're after, how about 'Post-Liberalism'?
A quick Google reveals the term is still relatively free of widespread use.
A quick Google reveals the term is still relatively free of widespread use.
Really, we should use leftist/rightist as labels most of the time. Liberalism/conservatism is pro-new/pro-old, whereas leftist/rightist views are more timeless.
Basically: neo-conservatism/liberalism today will be conservatism/liberalism tomorrow, and conservatism/liberalism today was neo-conservatism/liberalism yesterday.
You hear that usmarine? By the standards of yesteryear, you are a liberal.
Basically: neo-conservatism/liberalism today will be conservatism/liberalism tomorrow, and conservatism/liberalism today was neo-conservatism/liberalism yesterday.
You hear that usmarine? By the standards of yesteryear, you are a liberal.