From one post you figure someone is a neocon...

• who no sexist outrage last week - frenula
  • Saw the show. It was a guest on the show.... - sam
  • The person who said this was not.... - notvotingthisyear
    • since we have two neocons - frenula
      • From one post you figure someone is a neocon... - sam
      • Funny how it was okay when Hillary made remarks - dee
        • I never heard Hill commenting on SP breasts - henulae
          • No she didn't say breasts, she said she had the "mens parts" - dee
            • that is kind of a - menula
              • No more creepy than you to be fixed on her breasts - ewww back at ya. - dee
                • I meant fixated on her breasts not fixed - dee
                  • that's okay - it was funny the first - menula
                    • Glad I could amuse you - dee
                    • Or a roach, you could be a roach on her breast - no msg - Raid
                      • that might burn a hole in her blouse - megularo
                      • watched a documentary - brachiola
                • you been working on that answer - menula
                  • Don't be insulting and daft - I've been away from my desk - dee
                    • its like wack a mole on this board - brachiola

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Your accusation that because Im liberal/democrat/anti war and so I smoke reefer shows your ignorance..PERIOD..I dont post in broad generalizations and I ask you to show me where I have..PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE POSTED IN BROAD GENERALIZATIONS OR LIES.  And, I once again ask you to show me the news reports of where there was a stench in the DC mall because of the anti war people or the anti war people in your town do not bathe and stink..Show me the stories..Waiting for the proof..sure hope you can post it, otherwise guess you are discredited and proven to be a liar (so what else is new, conservative=liar)..Guess you need to find another handle to post under the liberal board, LOL.  

GET OFF THE LIBERAL BOARD, FOR PETE SAKE, GET OFF THE LIBERAL BOARD, WE DONT WANT YOU HERE.

Bye, bye, neocon..you have been told quite a few times to stay off the liberal board..IMHO save yourself from grief and angst..dont read this board, dont post on this board, dont come on this board..

 I always thought neocon mean the **new and improved version** the *reenergized*, the uber-conservative.

We are the ones who think what is causing so much of the problem is the attitude of the American left.  

The true conservative is not faint of heart, and we've still got a lot of fight left in us...for the the actual war and for the fight against the extreme leftists who have now unashamedly positioned themselves as a roadblock in the effort.

The above statements you made are what I was referring to about the maligning the left. These hawkiest of the hawks are backpeddaling which is a huge shock to me, but you think the problem is **the American left** who have **positioned themselves as a roadblock.**

I, on the other hand, think these guys mentioned in the article said they felt the administration was incompetent. Perleman said he still thought his own philosophy about spreading democracy and using a dominant military was the right way to go; he has just discovered that this administration can't do it. I believe he said, verbatim, it's a good idea but we have to throw it in the Can't Do drawer because it is over, at least for a generation. None of these guys mentioned the left as being part of the problem; they laid it squarely on the shoulders of this administration.

Furthermore, no one is asking you conservatives to leave the board because of **my tender feelings**..I only know these people through their posts, why would they ask you to leave because of me..What I post and my beliefs, I DEFEND THEM AND DO NOT ASK ANYONE ELSE TO **GANG UP WITH ME** against conservatives which is not like your ilk, who always gang up with your conservative cohorts on the liberal board against the liberals.  Whatever reason anyone on the liberal board asks you to leave is NOT BECAUSE OF GT..Maybe in your psyche it is easier to take, thinking..well, they only ask us to leave because of **GT's tender feelings**..Well, that is not the reason..I have never asked anyone on the liberal board to back me up or to ask you conservatives to leave..It is their opinions, beliefs and feelings and I have mine..When they ask you to leave they do so for their own reasons, NOT MINE.

And I wasn't the one who wrote the things you are responding to, but here is a really good definition of Neocon and perhaps you can see why AG and I and others have stridently objected to being labeled Neocon in the past.  Though I have some Neocon friends and I admire most of their beliefs, I am no Neocon.  Neither, for that matter, is President Bush, who has been labeled a neocon ad nauseum on these boards.

From Chris Jones:

It would appear that you are unfamiliar with the history of the neo-conservative movement, a history which explains why some folks associate it with Jews and why the use of “neo-con” as a pejorative seems to some to smell of anti-Semitism.

The original “neo-conservatives” were a group of left-of-center intellectuals who became disillusioned with their liberal politics and became conservatives — mostly, but not exclusively, on foreign policy and national security issues. Many, but not all, of these intellectuals were Jewish, and the “center of gravity” of the nascent neo-conservative movement was Commentary magazine and its editors and writers. Prominent among the early neo-conservatives were Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz (who are Jewish) and Jeanne Kirkpatrick (who is (I think) a Gentile). Commentary magazine played the role in the neo-conservative movement that was played by National Review in the broader conservative intellectual movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

The contemporary conservative journalists Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz are the sons of the early neo-conservatives Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz.

The defining characteristic of neo-conservatism, properly so called, is a belief in a robustly activist foreign policy by people who were formerly left-of-center. The movement is associated with Jewish-ness because many of its early leading lights happened to be Jews; but Jewish-ness is accidental to the movement, not characteristic of it. To use “neo-con” as a sort of vaguely anti-Semitic slur is not only dishonorable, but a misuse of language. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, though. 

Boy, you are a slow learner.  You complain to another poster that the NY Times is liberal slanted yet you cut and paste from you right-wing neocon rags (I know you don't like the neocon label but too bad).  You make it appear this is your original thinking.  You post this stuff like it's your original writing and thinking but it's all cut and paste or right-wing propanda.  I think you get 1 star on this one but you get high marks for crazed and annoying persistence and perserveration.

in an intelligent non-bashing manner, but you people can't stand that.

Just go to page #11 and see the posts on 7/20 and 7/21 where she took MT's abuse, let it roll off her back and tried to debate with her, watched as MT was close to having a seizure and then told her to chill. 

Reading the archives is interesting.  LOL.  Even see one where MT denies being a conservative and then says she'll never post here again.  

Lying and attacking and personal insults.  You can't defend the issues because your theory is indefensible.

Again, this is the liberal board.  We're not here to please you.

you would have had him do....stand there folding it like a doofus folding towels in a laundromat?  I dunno, seems that might have reduced the dramatic impact somehow.  He had the knife in one hand, which would have made folding a tricky thing to accomplish.  Seriously, not sure how else he could have handled the flag, given the situation.  Maybe throw it over one shoulder like a toga?  One would assume those who had improperly hung the flag might have been nearby, maybe a little P.O.'d over his cutting it down.  When ''exigent circumstances'' exist, you get the flag down as efficiently as possible and worry about the frills later.  Tell us all, exactly what would Amanda do?

Decreasing the mortgage payment by 30% would only lengthen the repayment terms.  Mortgage holders wouldn't get anything out of it, but probably would end up paying more over the course of time due to interest.

What cracks me up is you asking "what's in it for me?" and then complaining about the greed of others.  Hypocrits are everywhere.

... I know we don't want to digress, but please stop blaming the fact that we have to resort to these measures on the current administration

Here’s what a lot of us believe:  We don't 'have' to print or borrow money to buy our way out of this mess.  That is the thing most people will not acknowledge.  The mortgage crisis and  the housing ‘bubble’ were caused by government meddling with Fannie/Freddie loan standards. That sent the whole house of cards tumbling and the cascade of threatened failures that resulted.  More government meddling will not fix this.  You cannot shore up a house of cards.  It's still cards.  It should have been allowed to fall and be rebuilt, even if that meant starting from the ground up.  Sucks to be us.

Foolish people who bought too much house for their means must be allowed to lose them.  Bad companies have to be allowed to fail.  Bad politicians with worse ideas also should to be allowed to fail; I'm doing my part not to get in their way.

I don't think anyone can name three things government does as efficiently and/or cheaply as private industry.  Now government will part owners in AIG, banks, and other failing concerns.  Now government wants to control  health care?  And all of this - plus much more - was put in an 1100-page document nobody who voted on it could even read?

Even though this is all mostly a done deal, I still cannot go along with the can't-we-all-get-along; wait-and-see crowd.  Of course we’ll all just have to ‘sweat it out’ now, what choice?  This is so reminiscent of the FDR New Deal 70 years ago that I cannot believe we have learned nothing from history.  What am I saying?  Of course I can believe it.  We’re still idiots! 

Tell me if any of this sounds familiar:

‘We seldom know six weeks in advance, what we are going to do.’  ‘It is common sense, to take a method and try it: if it fails, admit it frankly and try another.  But above all, try something.’  FDR 

Some of the things he tried:

National Recovery Act (fixed prices and wages).  Forced smaller companies out of business, since lower wages and prices where the only way they could compete with big companies. 

A law in Washington, DC, mandating a minimum monthly wage for women (only), resulting in women losing their jobs to men who were willing to work for much less than that guaranteed wage. 

Agricultural Adjustment Act (subsidized farms by taking acreage out of production and fixed prices).  Designed to curb overproduction and support prices.  In reality production rose because farmers used their cash subsidies to buy fertilizer, and they had taken their worst acreage out of production anyway.  They switched to the crops whose prices were guaranteed, hence, even more overproduction. 

Works Progress Administration (to provide employment and improve infrastructure).  Turned into a giant political patronage system to reward supporters with ‘shovel-leaning’ jobs and to punish detractors.  To get most such jobs, you had to declare your political party, ‘vote right’ and ‘tithe’ to the D party.

Emergency Relief Act (made available to governors to assist the needy in their states).  Since it was supported by huge tax increases, it all but shut off voluntary charitable contributions that traditionally went to the needy.

Excise taxes arbitrarily levied on a few luxury items of the rich such as yachts, furs and jewelry, but also on cars, gasoline, radios, cosmetics, cameras, bank checks, long-distance phone calls and movie tickets used by lower-income groups.

Tariffs on imported goods, which caused other countries to retaliate by taxing or not buying our goods and damaged our export business.

Top income tax bracket for the too-rich (only) 79%  and the IRS was used as a weapon to harass and punish the wealthy, as well as critics of New Deal policies.  Roosevelt was incensed that the wealthy (though he was born to wealth)  used tax loopholes such as charitable deductions and business losses to legally avoid taxes, so he instructed the IRS and Congress to close them.  Meanwhile, FDR himself used such loopholes to deduct the value of materials he donated for his own future presidential library.  He took business losses and farm losses on his personal tax returns. 

Roosevelt was one of those silver-spoon guys, subsidized by someone else’s money (his mother’s) his entire life.  He failed repeatedly in businesses financed by family money.  He had a solid record of picking losers; he thought the airplane was a fad.  He had a lackluster academic career.  Never held a ‘real’ job. His only talents were his personality and charisma.  

Yes, FDR inherited the beginnings of the Great Depression from Herbert Hoover in 1933,  but  Roosevelt’s repeated ‘try something’ efforts to fix it kept it going until World War II. 

Any of this starting to sound familiar?  We’ve been at this exact pivotal point before and we are blowing it again.  Elected another snake oil salesman.  Way to go.

I can cite three sources right away that state that statistically this move is supported more than not by the Jews as well as major U.S. Jewish organizations.