Republican Lieberman?
- Thread starter langeweile
- Start date
No don't play game with psudointelegent terms that are self serving.*d* said:Shall I start calling you repulsive names as well? In plain english? You don't seem to hesitate.
I am not*d* said:
You pretend to be self important and I will call you by a name which means it.
Apparently you don't visit www.freerepulic.com very often.*d* said:
This is an excerpt from a statement by its founder Jim Robinson:
“Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.”
Read the rest here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
Hope you are enjoying your odyssey of discovery.
You do call people names. You called me 'hillery'. Are you a liar as well?papasmerf said:
What's with you? What is this 'self-important' crap? I was telling arclighter that his war paleo-con/freeper-con terms are bullsh*t. Its all simply neo-con. Neo-con is a common enough expression in today's US political circles.
Papa, you are absolutely right. DQ started this mess with his neo-con history lesson (which was in fact accurate). It seems that the neo-con label has morphed to mean anyone who supports the WOT. I don’t think this sort of generalization furthers debate, and I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy packaged with this mutated definition of neo-con.papasmerf said:
I know this is boring to the rest of you, but for some reason, D still finds it fascinating. As you have seen in other threads, I am always willing to beat a dead horse.
Tell me where someone said that anyone that supports the war on terror is a neo-con? Both the Democrats and Republicans support the war on terror for gods sake. You my friend, simply created new terms that do not exist in the White house. Is Jim Robinson part of the White house? Is the Bush administration pro-limited government, totally pro constitution or pro bill of rights? No. So they're not Freeper-cons. They're simply neo-cons.arclighter said:
DQ when speeling become more imortent than content I know I have struck paydirt.DonQuixote said:If you're going to call someone 'psudointelegent' you might want to do a
spell check first. You don't sound very 'intelegent'.
Don
Jeesh. It's 'regan' and now 'psudointelegent'.
So, that's the mind power of a Republican.
Where did the conservatives go? No wonder
Rove's rhetoric and propaganda works so well.
This response was also anticipated and is why I pointed out earlier in this thread: "Remember, we are talking about ideology, not reality. In reality, the GWBA as been very “liberal” on the domestic front as evidenced by the huge increase in entitlement spending."*d* said:Tell me where someone said anyone that supports the war on terror is a neo-con? Both the Democrats and Republicans support the war on terror for gods sake. You my friend, simply created new terms that do not exist in the White house. Is Jim Robinson part of the White house? Is the Bush administration pro-limited government, pro constitution, pro bill of rights and oppose all forms of liberalism? No. So they're not Freeper-cons. They're simply neo-cons.
Most in the GWBA would agree with Jim Robinson's statement. They have done a very poor job of translating these principles into reality.
To summarize, the key players in the GWBA profess to be war-conservatives, but act more like war-statists.
Are we clear on the labels yet?
Not at allDonQuixote said:
this become relivent only if one does not know the posters. It is much like when you post a negitive comonet. No one is anymore suprised by that then they are by my spelling omissions.
RonnieDonQuixote said:You're view that my posting is negative is your view.
Others may view my posting as being positive.
I depends on which side of the street you're sitting on,
doesn't it? Apparently, you're the only true, authentic
source for the value of a post.
Don
His name is Reagan, Reagan, Reagan......
not ronald
They are by ideology but not reality.arclighter said:
Got the inside scoop do you? I think some members of the Bush administration won't even know who Jim Robinson is. Lets recap -you say the GWBA is not neo-con because they are mistakenly too liberal. But they can't be freeper-cons because freepers oppose liberalism and a large government body. They can't be paleo-cons because paleos oppose the Iraqi war. And they can't be war paleo-cons because the term doesn't exist. Sorry arclighter but they are neo-cons, thru and thru, because they agree to neo-con principles. -with or without liberal slipups.pops,papasmerf said:
WTF you doing hanging still around the political lounge?!?!?!
According to your other post in Niagara:
You're running kinda late aren't you?...........papasmerf said:
No problem today is DecemberDonQuixote said:If he tells time like he spells, he's probably got the wrong day and time!
Classic pops, Classic 'papasmerf'!!!!papasmerf said:
Stay just the way you are, don't change a thing.
Proof postive the values of a higher education are highly overrated.......
