Letter of Apology

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by elected4ever

Why is it necessary to enforce our will. Defense and aggression are two different things.

Saddam was a terrorist, removing him from power was a defensive move.



How am I a lier. It is not me who has their sights set on world domination. If you don't believe me read GW's inaugural speech but this time think about what he is saying.

Spreading democracy does not equate to world domination. However, world wide democracies are in our own best interest, simply because democracies are much less likely to wage war, dictatorships are much more likely to wage war.


Never said you were. What has that got to do with being a neocon?

Being Jewish is on of the riquirements of a 'neocon'.


I am not the one falling for the propaganda and defending it. I understand it and have to deal with it but I am not fooled by it. Doc gave you an example of the neocon thinking by quoteing Henry Hide and you flipped him off. So you must agree with them.

I flipped off Doc because he started his post exclaiming that I don't care about the Constitution.
 

elected4ever

New member
Originally posted by BillyBob

Saddam was a terrorist, removing him from power was a defensive move.
Then why was it necessary to by-pass the constitution? Saddam was not a treat to the US. He was a treat to his neighbors. I don't see his neighbors doing anything but obstructing.





Spreading democracy does not equate to world domination. However, world wide democracies are in our own best interest, simply because democracies are much less likely to wage war, dictatorships are much more likely to wage war.
I would not walk across the street to spread democracy. Democracy is a code word for socialism. According to Bush, he will do what ever it takes to spared socialism. There is no liberty or freedom in lawless societies especially the minorities of that society. Democracies are oppressive in nature and unstable. God favors monarchies. That makes God a despot I suppose.



Being Jewish is on of the requirements of a 'neocon'.
Not to any definition that I have heard. Anyone in favor of the New world order is a neocon. That don't have to be Jewish





I flipped off Doc because he started his post exclaiming that I don't care about the Constitution.
You don't. Your actions prove it. If I am wrong prove me wrong.
 

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by drbrumley

Thank you for the straightforward answer. So Iraq doesn't have that right that we have? No SOVERIGN nation can break the sanctions unless it is the United States?

We are not discussing rights, we are not discussing sanctions against the United States. International relations are not a matter of some misguided view of moral parity, much as you would like to imply it so.

We are dealing with sovereign nations. Saddam Hussein amassed a 14-year track record of violating the sanctions which were imposed upon him by other sovereign nations. Saddam's ability to withstand or defeat those sanctions were based upon his power to do so, not some chimerous "right" to do so.

Let's get real, doctor. A sovereign nation exists because of its ability to defend its territory and sovereignty. A nation exists because of the forebearance of other sovereign nations. The rules imposed by other sovereign nations against a sovereign nation are effective only if the rules imposed can be enforced. Enforcement can come about through compliance, diplomacy, and/or force of arms.

With Saddam Hussein compliance was never an issue, diplomacy failed and the United States, and others, resorted to armed force. That's the way of the world, like it or lump it.
 

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by elected4ever


Then why was it necessary to by-pass the constitution?

Congress approved our action in Iraq.

Saddam was not a treat to the US. He was a treat to his neighbors. I don't see his neighbors doing anything but obstructing.

Saddam was threat to the entire western civilizastion, he was a terrorist.




I would not walk across the street to spread democracy.

Nobody is asking you to.

Democracy is a code word for socialism. According to Bush, he will do what ever it takes to spared socialism.

:darwinsm:

There is no liberty or freedom in lawless societies especially the minorities of that society. Democracies are oppressive in nature and unstable. God favors monarchies. That makes God a despot I suppose.

:darwinsm:


Not to any definition that I have heard. Anyone in favor of the New world order is a neocon. That don't have to be Jewish

Here is a page with quite a few in depth definitions of neocon. After reading it, you will conclude that the term has absolutely no definitive meaning.




You don't. Your actions prove it. If I am wrong prove me wrong.

:wave2:

Oh, there's that pesky smilie again....how many fingers is he holding up this time?
 

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
Criticism of term Neoconservative

The term was coined by socialist Michael Harrington, who wanted a way to characterize former leftists who had moved significantly to the right – people he had been deriding as "socialists for Nixon."

Many of the men and women to whom the neoconservative label is applied reject it as artificial and too abstract. The fact that its use has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long term. David Horowitz, a purported leading neo-con thinker offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:

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.

Similarly, many other supposed neoconservatives believe that the term has been adopted by the political left to stereotype supporters of U.S. foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration. Others have similarly likened descriptions of neoconservatism to a conspiracy theory and attribute the term to anti-Semitism. Paul Wolfowitz has denounced the term as meaningless label, saying:

[If] you read the Middle Eastern press, it seems to be a euphemism for some kind of nefarious Zionist conspiracy. But I think that, in my view it's very important to approach [foreign policy] not from a doctrinal point of view. I think almost every case I know is different. Indonesia is different from the Philippines. Iraq is different from Indonesia. I think there are certain principles that I believe are American principles – both realism and idealism. I guess I'd like to call myself a democratic realist. I don't know if that makes me a neo-conservative or not.

Other "traditional" conservatives (e.g., Jonah Goldberg) have rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative." Other critics have similarly argued the term has been rendered meaningless through excessive and inconsistant use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are often identified as leading "neocons" despite the fact that both men have been life-long conservative Republicans. Such critics thus largely reject the claim that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism.

Other traditional conservatives are likewise skeptical of the contemporary usage term, and may dislike being associated with the stereotypes, or even the supposed agendas of the "neocons." Conservative columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."
 

PureX

Well-known member
The term "neo-conservative" only means "new conservative". It is used today in america to differentiate between the old (past) political conservative platform, and those who believed in it, and a new politically conservative platform that has been emerging since Reagan. There are some similarities, of course, but there are also some striking differences. And it's these striking differences that have made the term "neo-conservative" so necessary and functuonal.

It's a proper term, and in most cases today it's being used properly.
 

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
It's a meaningless term because there is no consensus for its definition. The demo-commies love to throw the term around because they think it has a derogatory meaning, but they just end up looking stupid, as usual.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Originally posted by BillyBob It's a meaningless term because there is no consensus for its definition. The demo-commies love to throw the term around because they think it has a derogatory meaning, but they just end up looking stupid, as usual.
Conservatives themselves use the term. You're only objecting to it because you know full well that it has some derogatory implications. One of the most prominant characteristics of the neo-cons is that they are extremely aggressive, so much so that they will do most anything to facilitate their own agenda, not the least of which is lying. They sanction and even promote violence as a viable method of furthering their agenda, and they have no respect for the rights or desires of other people or nations. They worship power, and they believe the ability to use force automatically justifies the decision to do so. "Might makes us right" could be their motto. I've seen you promote this nonsense yourself, and if you don't like the way makes you look, then that's your own problem, isn't it. Don't try and blame what you are on what it's called.
 

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by PureX

Conservatives themselves use the term.

So?

You're only objecting to it because you know full well that it has some derogatory implications.

I don't think it's derogatory at all, but as I have clearly demonstrated, there is no consensus as to the word's definition.

One of the most prominant characteristics of the neo-cons is that they are extremely aggressive, so much so that they will do most anything to facilitate their own agenda, not the least of which is lying. They sanction and even promote violence as a viable method of furthering their agenda, and they have no respect for the rights or desires of other people or nations. They worship power, and they believe the ability to use force automatically justifies the decision to do so. "Might makes us right" could be their motto. I've seen you promote this nonsense yourself, and if you don't like the way makes you look, then that's your own problem, isn't it. Don't try and blame what you are on what it's called.

:yawn:

Go read the links I provided, then get back to us....
 

dotcom

New member
Originally posted by PureX

Conservatives themselves use the term. You're only objecting to it because you know full well that it has some derogatory implications. One of the most prominant characteristics of the neo-cons is that they are extremely aggressive, so much so that they will do most anything to facilitate their own agenda, not the least of which is lying. They sanction and even promote violence as a viable method of furthering their agenda, and they have no respect for the rights or desires of other people or nations. They worship power, and they believe the ability to use force automatically justifies the decision to do so. "Might makes us right" could be their motto. I've seen you promote this nonsense yourself, and if you don't like the way makes you look, then that's your own problem, isn't it. Don't try and blame what you are on what it's called.

Constructive dialogue set aside, why are you seething in anger? It is just a discussion.
 

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by dotcom

Constructive dialogue set aside, why are you seething in anger? It is just a discussion.


Liberals are very reactionary. They live in the world of 'feelings' and 'emotions', not the world of thought and logic. That explains their policies and the method of pandering their leaders prefer.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Originally posted by dotcom Constructive dialogue set aside, why are you seething in anger? It is just a discussion.
I'm not "seething in anger" at all. These "new conservatives" are extremely aggressive. They are dishonest in pursuit of their agenda. They do promote violence as the means to their ends. They do believe that "might makes right". And these attitudes are distinctly different than the attitudes of conservatives of days past. Don't blame the words, or the people using them, just because you don't like what they mean.
 

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by PureeX

I'm not "seething in anger" at all. These "new conservatives" are extremely aggressive. They are dishonest in pursuit of their agenda. They do promote violence as the means to their ends. They do believe that "might makes right". And these attitudes are distinctly different than the attitudes of conservatives of days past. Don't blame the words, or the people using them, just because you don't like what they mean.

Gee! Looks like "new conservative" = commie.

The again, lie-berals always accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they are doing.
 

elected4ever

New member
Originally posted by Jackielabby

Jeez, how on earth does one not fall into the 'commie' category in FE's eyes?
1. By not challenging the policies of the Bush neocons. One word of descent and you become a commie to BB and the rest of the illiterate neocon supporters. 2. being a commie and supporting communist like the Dems and Rep. do.:crackup:
 

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by :mock::e4e:

1. By not challenging the policies of the Bush neocons. One word of descent and you become a commie to BB and the rest of the illiterate neocon supporters. 2. being a commie and supporting communist like the Dems and Rep. do.:crackup:
:darwinsm: You are challenging :aikido:7's preeminence for posting simplistic stupidities.
 
Top