The neocon moment is over

[EdSutton]

Limbaugh claims that he can singlehandedly pick the GOP nominee for president if he chooses to do so.

"To dream, the impossible dream! To figh....."

Uh, last time I checked, he had no more votes than you or I, that being a total of one.

BTW, I'm as conservative as Rush portrays himself to be. I just am not on the radio and web.

Ed

 

[KenH]

Uh, last time I checked, he had no more votes than you or I, that being a total of one.

Just passing along what the man claims.

 

[poncho]

I'm pretty sure that neither Sean Hannity nor Rush Limbaugh can do one thing to "implement" any political ideology, as neither has any elected or appointed political office. an they "influence" voters? Absolutely, and to a good degree. And the voters can elect those whom they think will do a particular thing. But only those actually in Government, such as President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, and Messers Wolfowitz, and Rove can "implement" anything in that regard.

Just for clarification.

Ed

We can vote for whoever the NWO chooses for us. That's the power the Hannity's and Limbaugh's have...the power to hide the truth by keeping us all constantly bogged down in a false left vs right paradigm. There is only one party, some in that party want to impliment a global government along socialist lines and others in that party want to impliment a global government along fascist lines. Either way all of them in one way or another are all for global government.

 

[KenH]

Either way there is only one globalist party, deompublicans or republicrats.

Truer words have never been posted in this forum.

You are the man, poncho. :thumbs:

 

[hillclimber1]

I'm surprised Rush hasn't destroyed himself yet, as a politically powerful commentator, but I'm betting he will, sooner or later. Oh yes there is a great deal of truth in his misguided assertion.

 

[poncho]

I'm surprised Rush hasn't destroyed himself yet, as a politically powerful commentator, but I'm betting he will, sooner or later. Oh yes there is a great deal of truth in his misguided assertion.

He helped to bring the globalist's "liberal" agenda to all our attention. In that I think he was right, but now he just serves to midirect his listeners away from the crimes our elected public servants have commited in our names. He's a NWO shill now. True he'd probably rather see a North American NWO instead of the Eurpopean NWO style the dems favor, but who cares, it's our country they have to bring down in order to realize their grand global goal and I don't like the idea of any of them bringing America to naught. That just gets on my fightin side man!

 

[hillclimber1]

He helped to bring the globalist's "liberal" agenda to all our attention. In that I think he was right, but now he just serves to midirect his listeners away from the crimes our elected public servants have commited in our names. He's a NWO shill now. True he'd probably rather see a North American NWO instead of the Eurpopean NWO style the dems favor, but who cares, it's our country they have to bring down in order to realize their grand global goal and I don't like the idea of any of them bringing America to naught. That just gets on my fightin side man!

I don't read him that way, but you may very well be right. I think he recognizes GWB's religious good works ideals, but I don't see him accepting them. I see Rush as against NWO in any form, but again, I'm not sure of it. Rush's acceptance of the NAFTA thing really bugged me. He always seems to leave room to wiggle later. I wish I'd have heard Rush yesterday, as someone told me Rush was on this subject.

 

[poncho]

I don't read him that way, but you may very well be right. I think he recognizes GWB's religious good works ideals, but I don't see him accepting them. I see Rush as against NWO in any form, but again, I'm not sure of it. Rush's acceptance of the NAFTA thing really bugged me. He always seems to leave room to wiggle later. I wish I'd have heard Rush yesterday, as someone told me Rush was on this subject.

I figure that Bush is taking Machiavelli and Strauss' advice on religion. Use it to sway the people and accomplish your geopolitical goals but don't take it to seriously. He only has to look religious in front of the camera, we've had a few glimpses of how he acts when he thinks the cameras and mikes are off now. So, I'm led to believe his "religion" is only for show and consumption of the less than discerning masses .

 

[Dragoon68]

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif][FONT=arial,sans-serif] So-called "neo" conservatism has its roots in a Marxist view of the world. ...[/FONT][/FONT]

You are loosing it, poncho!

 

[poncho]

You are loosing it, poncho!

This is what I said in an earlier post.

I would say fascists who admire the likes of Trotsky, Machiavelli and Strauss more than Marx. They seem to believe in perpetual change (revolution) "creative destruction" (order out of chaos) and the "noble lie".

Notice how I disagree with the author of the article about the neocon's "Marxist" roots? Trotsky believed in permanent revolution (change) so do the neocons (from reading their writtings). Machiavelli and Strauss believed in lying to the people because the people cannot understand what is good for them (apparently so do the neocons) and it was Michael Ledeen, neocon advisor to the neocons that gloried in what he termed as "creative destruction". If one is going to follow people with a certain ideology it would behoove us to at least be able to pin down what and who's ideologies we are embrasing...doncha think?

Myself, I'll stick with Christian and traditional American conservative roots. Global fascism is something I cannot support, no matter how "good, sweet, honorable and patriotic" the transnational PTB (Govcorp Inc.) makes it sound. Tip: Any ordinary bath soap works wonders at getting that honey out of itching ears.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Dragoon68]

... Tip: Any ordinary bath soap works wonders at getting that honey out of itching ears.

[SIZE=+1]
The soap for the ears may be a good thing for you to pursue as you seem to hear little else besides globalism.

It's clear from the voting records of Congress that Republican and Democratic members are not at all aligned to the same way of thinking. I must say that I'm not especially pleased with either side on some key issues - such as immigration law enforcement - but I'm a whole lot more inclined to find at least some commonality among Republicans on the majority of issues. I trust neither with the future of our nation but I see the Democratic party on a much higher speed and focused path to destruction than the Republicans. I pound on them regularly - daily at times - regardless of their party affiliation. Unfortunately, Ron Paul and company does not offer a completely palatable solution. [/SIZE]

 

[JamieinNH]

[SIZE=+1]Unfortunately, Ron Paul and company does not offer a completely palatable solution. [/SIZE]

Please explain in detail what Ron Paul lacks with it comes to the conservative view point and the solution you're looking for.

Thanks,

Jamie

 

[Dragoon68]

Please explain in detail what Ron Paul lacks with it comes to the conservative view point and the solution you're looking for.

Thanks,

Jamie

I do not agree with his position on the war in Iraq nor his assertion that it is illegal - un-Constitutional - and not justified.

 

[JamieinNH]

I do not agree with his position on the war in Iraq nor his assertion that it is illegal - un-Constitutional - and not justified.

ok, but in your post you mentioned these two things..

[SIZE=+1]... majority of issues.
....a completely palatable solution. [/SIZE]


You have mentioned one (1) issue you have with Ron Paul. What would the others be? You do vote for a person that you can agree with, with the majority of issues right? So what about the many many other positions. How do you see that Ron Paul don't fit your palatable solutions?

Jamie

​

 

[Dragoon68]

ok, but in your post you mentioned these two things..

[SIZE=+1]... majority of issues.
....a completely palatable solution. [/SIZE]

You have mentioned one (1) issue you have with Ron Paul. What would the others be? You do vote for a person that you can agree with, with the majority of issues right? So what about the many many other positions. How do you see that Ron Paul don't fit your palatable solutions?

Jamie

I think I've already adequately answered your question but I'll play with a bit more of your bait.

I'm not completely sold regarding Ron Paul's positions on foreign trade agreements. That's two issues to meet the plurality you've questioned.

Yes, every Presidential candidate I've ever voted for or against has involved some degree of disagreement or agreement. When the time comes I make a choice that I believe is the best from those choices available.

In the case of Ron Paul, I can't accept his position on the war in Iraq so he can't have my vote.

Two "palatable solutions" that I want are (1) absolute complete victory over all terrorists threats to our nation no matter how long or how much it takes and (2) absolute complete end to illegal immigration and removal of all illegal aliens no matter how long or how much it takes.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Two "palatable solutions" that I want are (1) absolute complete victory over all terrorists threats to our nation no matter how long or how much it takes and

This can only be had with complete gov't control. Any person has the potential to use terroristic tactics should he so desire and thus represents a terrorist threat.

(2) absolute complete end to illegal immigration and removal of all illegal aliens no matter how long or how much it takes.

Which would leave you with voting for Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo or....Ron Paul...all the others think illegal immigration is swell.

 

[Dragoon68]

This can only be had with complete gov't control. Any person has the potential to use terroristic tactics should he so desire and thus represents a terrorist threat. ...

No, it just means we need to fight our enemies to win and it doesn't mean we have to give up our liberty here at home. It can be done! We need to pray harder. I'd still disband TSA and let the citizens arm themselves!

...Which would leave you with voting for Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo or....Ron Paul...all the others think illegal immigration is swell.

I don't disagree that many now "mis-representing" us are okay with illegal immigration. I'm real unhappy about that. I send several letters per week expressing that. I get some really dumb and disappointing responses even from otherwise realtively sensible Senators and Representatives.

Right now I don't have a candidate to support from any party to be the next President. None of them from any corner yet fit my wants.

 

[Rufus_1611]

No, it just means we need to fight our enemies to win and it doesn't mean we have to give up our liberty here at home. It can be done! We need to pray harder. I'd still disband TSA and let the citizens arm themselves!

I like that idea.

 

[JamieinNH]

I think I've already adequately answered your question but I'll play with a bit more of your bait.

I'm not completely sold regarding Ron Paul's positions on foreign trade agreements. That's two issues to meet the plurality you've questioned.

Yes, every Presidential candidate I've ever voted for or against has involved some degree of disagreement or agreement. When the time comes I make a choice that I believe is the best from those choices available.

In the case of Ron Paul, I can't accept his position on the war in Iraq so he can't have my vote.

Two "palatable solutions" that I want are (1) absolute complete victory over all terrorists threats to our nation no matter how long or how much it takes and (2) absolute complete end to illegal immigration and removal of all illegal aliens no matter how long or how much it takes.

I am sorry if you thought I was "baiting" you. It's just that so many other posters on this board will outright discount Ron Paul and then won't give any reason.

I don't agree with your opinion of Ron Paul, I think he would be a very good President, but at least you shared your opinion instead of just casting your stones with no reason.

Thanks,

Jamie

 

[hillclimber1]

[SIZE=+1]
The soap for the ears may be a good thing for you to pursue as you seem to hear little else besides globalism.

It's clear from the voting records of Congress that Republican and Democratic members are not at all aligned to the same way of thinking. I must say that I'm not especially pleased with either side on some key issues - such as immigration law enforcement - but I'm a whole lot more inclined to find at least some commonality among Republicans on the majority of issues. I trust neither with the future of our nation but I see the Democratic party on a much higher speed and focused path to destruction than the Republicans. I pound on them regularly - daily at times - regardless of their party affiliation. Unfortunately, Ron Paul and company does not offer a completely palatable solution. [/SIZE]

Very good statement, that I agree with.