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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Potentially Big News on Lieberman's Cap-and-Trade Proposal

Posted September 20, 2007 | 05:06 PM (EST)

Recently, one of the most irksome members of the Senate, Joe Lieberman (I-Clowntown) expressed openness to one of the boldest and most effective climate-change policies possible. Some background,

A cap-and-trade system begins by placing a cap on carbon emissions and distributing permits (permission to emit a certain amount of CO2) equal to the capped amount. The notion is that permits will be bought and sold, allowing market forces to determine where emission reductions can be made fastest and easiest. The question is how to distribute those initial permits.

When the EU carbon trading system was established, permits were given away based on emissions, meaning the biggest polluters got the most permits. The idea was that those polluters most needed the money because they had the biggest reductions to make, but in practice it was an enormous financial windfall for their shareholders and prompted very little action on their part to reduce emissions.

The alternative is to sell the permits at auction. This would, in effect, put the proceeds in government coffers rather than in the pockets of utility shareholders. The question then becomes: what should the gov't do with all that money (up to $50B a year)?

The Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade proposal, released early this year, was widely seen as the "moderate" bill that could get some support from Senate Republicans. One of the biggest criticisms it faced is that it would auction only 20% of the permits -- 80% would be given away to polluters.

But an intriguing item in Politico indicates that Lieberman may be open to changing that:

Lieberman, following a forum sponsored by the Progressive Policy Institute Wednesday, said such a change to his legislation was possible. "We've heard [calls for a 100 percent auction] from some stakeholders and heard that from some of our members. We're thinking about it. Warner and I haven't closed our minds to that. It's on the table," he said.

This could be huge news. The L-W proposal is viewed as the middle of the road. If it moves to 100% auctioned credits, that will effectively sanctify it as the new baseline. The policy and political implications are both huge.

Fox and of course had the 'ole Fox spin put on it, riling up once again the unstable.

Most of the money will not go to the people. So far, I have not come across anything that deals with foreclosures, etc. The item I posted last night from our local newspaper is the so-called stimulus package that will help foreclosures.

Read the doggone bill that they are trying to pass, please. Then you may see the light of day.

You evidently don't know what a NeoCon is.

David Roberts

Potentially Big News on Lieberman's Cap-and-Trade Proposal