The Liberal's Go To Guy, John McCain

[Baptist in Richmond]

The people who throw the name around the most seem to have the least idea what it is.

Perhaps you would like a mirror?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

It's all right there.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Which is ignorant and common practice. It is also like the lefties use of fascist. Never really appropriate but it makes them feel better. I suggest they call Hannity's hate hotline. He will let them say what ever they want and then he will air it on his program. This is a public service to the left and it is free.:laugh:

No: a Neocon is a specific school of thought. See previous post to carpro - should be the one directly above this.

As for Hannity's hate hotline, only a Hannity listener would know what this is. Does this mean you listen to Sean Hannity? I wouldn't want to simply assume you are, but that would certainly make sense.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

"Neocon"? They're trying to evoke an association with the word "Neo-Nazi", it's also a term used by anybody who doesn't support stormfront politics. Juan and his ilk are neoliberals.

First it was Bob Dole, now you are introducing the term "Neo-Nazi" into this discussion (which also has no place here).

Would it be possible to stick to the subject at hand?

 

[Revmitchell]

No: a Neocon is a specific school of thought. .

Do you have a source. I certainly do.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Do you have a source. I certainly do.

A source for what? McCain is a Neocon. Why are you having so much difficulty with this?

You didn't answer my question, by the way.

 

[Revmitchell]

A source for what? McCain is a Neocon. Why are you having so much difficulty with this?

You didn't answer my question, by the way.

I did not realize my question was that complicated. Do you have a source for your definition of neocon. And I didn't answer your question because the answer is obvious.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

I did not realize my question was that complicated.

It isn't complicated.

Do you have a source for your definition of neocon.

Did you read post # 61 in this thread?

And I didn't answer your question because the answer is obvious.

NO, I don't want to assume anything about anyone. I asked you a simple question: do you listen to Sean Hannity? I am not simply coming up with an answer - that is why I asked you. It isn't a hard question.

 

[Revmitchell]

It isn't complicated.



Did you read post # 61 in this thread?



NO, I don't want to assume anything about anyone. I asked you a simple question: do you listen to Sean Hannity? I am not simply coming up with an answer - that is why I asked you. It isn't a hard question.

Do you really want to source out wiki? I will just consider the source.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Do you really want to source out wiki? I will just consider the source.

Ah, so just like carpro, all you can do is attack the source.

Two great sources will require you to go to your public library.
Read Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, by Anne Norton
Or you could read On the Democratic Idea in America, by Irving Kristol

I would loan you my copies but I am in Virginia.

And you still didn't answer my question. I guess we will never really know. If you do listen to Hannity, it makes sense that you would think that McCain is a liberal though.


Perhaps you want the unbiased [long pause................................... :laugh:] opinion of conservapedia

http://www.conservapedia.com/Neoconservative

Sorry: I can't stop laughing.....

 

[saturneptune]

Do you really want to source out wiki? I will just consider the source.

You considering a source? Now that is rich.

 

[carpro]

Perhaps you would like a mirror?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

It's all right there.

The wikipedia definition is the one you want to go with?

Figures.

Amongst the definitions I have studied, it is the most simplistic and shallow.

If you study it in a little more depth than wikipedia, you'll find that President John Kennedy was one of the very first neocons.

 

[777]

This is EXACTLY why I can't stand to post here.

First it was Bob Dole, now you are introducing the term "Neo-Nazi" into this discussion (which also has no place here).

Would it be possible to stick to the subject at hand?

<snipped>

If you do listen to Hannity, it makes sense that you would think that McCain is a liberal

Does this mean you listen to Sean Hannity?

<snipped>

 

[betterthanideserve]

hum... As I stated when that question was asked. I knew you wouldn't answer.

You want to debate topics with people and yet offer no answers to questions. Status Quo for some it seems for you and many others like you...

Jamie

That is because he is what I call a net warrior,only here to stir the pot and report back to HQ:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

This is EXACTLY why I can't stand to post here.

AND YET, you grace us with these new albeit unrelated topics.

What does he [Sean Hannity] have to do with it, need a mirror?

A point worth noting is that I am not the one who introduced Sean Hannity into the discussion. Go back and read it for yourself.

Oh, and you don't tell me what to do, ever.

Perhaps you are having diffuculty with reading comprehension. If you will noticed, I ASKED you, I didn't tell you. You even did me the favor of reproducing my question for me.

Got it, lib?

Is this a threat? Hmmmm......
I guess we are dealing with a maturity factor. You are right here though, I am indeed a LIBERAL. At least you got that right.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

The wikipedia definition is the one you want to go with?

Figures.

Amongst the definitions I have studied, it is the most simplistic and shallow.

Perhaps this point has evaded you, but that is the point. Wikipedia is making an attempt to keep it simple. I thought everyone knew that.
If you have indeed "studied" neoconservatism (and please note that "studied" was your word, not mine), then you would know that McCain is a Neocon.

If you study it in a little more depth than wikipedia, you'll find that President John Kennedy was one of the very first neocons.

Wow: this should come as quite a surprise to Irving Kristol and Leo Strauss.

 

[777]

AND YET, you grace us with these new albeit unrelated topics.

Who's "us"? You can't even seem to understand that I don't care what you think a "neocon" is. It's a slur, so you like it.

Perhaps you are having diffuculty with reading comprehension. If you will noticed, I ASKED you, I didn't tell you. You even did me the favor of reproducing my question for me.

Perhaps you still have a problem with basic manners.

Is this a threat? Hmmmm......

No, but you're probably are whining that it's one to the moderators here. And you still don't what you're talking about.

I guess we are dealing with a maturity factor. You are right here though, I am indeed a LIBERAL. At least you got that right.

A NEOLIB you mean. :flower:

Forever. Laterz, NEOLIB


[/ignore]

 

[carpro]

Wow: this should come as quite a surprise to Irving Kristol and Leo Strauss.

John Kennedy was indeed one of this country's first neocons.

Liberal

anti communist

tax cutter

believed in the projection of military might

believed it was America's responsibility to advance the cause of freedom throughout the world


John McCain is not a neocon. He just doesn't fit the profile. Kennedy does.

It all illustrates the pitfalls of labeling. You use "neocon" as a prejorative. That's the only reason the term appeals to you.

You can't define neocon and you certainly have avoided telling us why you think McCain is one.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Who's "us"? You can't even seem to understand that I don't care what you think a "neocon" is. It's a slur, so you like it.

No, it is NOT a slur. You really don't understand that term, do you?

Perhaps you still have a problem with basic manners.

Well, let's see: I asked you to refrain from introducing topics into the discussion, that you stick to the subject at hand. Your terse response was really more indicative of a lack of "basic manners," wasn't it?

No, but you're probably are whining that it's one to the moderators here.

HUH?

And you still don't what you're talking about.

Yeah, right. It's quite apparent that really have no grasp of this subject.

A NEOLIB you mean. :flower:

Forever. Laterz, NEOLIB


[/ignore]

Ah, yes: this must be what you mean by "basic manners."

Your posts really do say more about you than they do about me......

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Wasn't 777 banned for this type of behavior before?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

John Kennedy was indeed one of this country's first neocons.

You haven't really studied this topic, have you?

It all illustrates the pitfalls of labeling. You use "neocon" as a prejorative. That's the only reason the term appeals to you.

It "appeals" to me because it's accurate. Much like every single discussion you join, you offer nothing but accusations and opinion, but nothing in terms of evidence to support anything you claim.

You can't define neocon and you certainly have avoided telling us why you think McCain is one.

You really are starting to look foolish, carpro. Don't you ever get tired of that?

By chance, did you look at the article at conservapedia?
[Long pause.................................................. :laugh:]
Conservapedia is proof that anyone can put anything out on the internet.
The author of this article is either:
1. WOEFULLY ignorant and/or inept
2. Deliberately attempting to mislead the reader.

Go down to the bottom of the page and look at the "sources" that are listed.
Pay close attention to number two. It reads:

Neoconservatives might be expected to back John McCain, but they do not -- most likely because McCain has little need or use for neoconservatives and thus they cannot expect to obtain top positions in a McCain Administration.

This is completely false, which explains why there is no source listed for this wildly inaccurate statement.

Here is an article from azcentral.com from August 11, 2006:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/special3/articles/0811mccain-advisers-ON.html
Read the article, and pay close attention to the list of McCain's advisors at the bottom.
Under "Foreign Policy," the list includes William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Robert Zoellick, Richard Armitage and Eliot Cohen, among others. Kristol and Kagan are identified as Neocons in the article at conservapedia!

I am inclined to believe that this is a result of woeful ignorance/ineptitude, but I cannot rule out a deliberate attempt to mislead. Either way, this shows that conservapedia has neither credibility nor objectivity. If you read the article on the Neoconservatives at wikipedia, it is arguably more balanced and clearly more accurate.

Now, if McCain is not a Neocon, as you seemingly claim, why have some of the heavyweights from the Neocon camp joined his campaign as advisors?