Shades of Conservatives...

[Guest $iLk]

Since the recent gap in viewpoints from those on the right, I thought it might be educational to disseminate two Wikipedia articles that would help one decide where one falls in the viewpoints on the 'right' side of politics:

Paleoconservative

Paleoconservatives esteem the principles of subsidiarity and localism in recognizing that one must surely be an Ohioan, Texan or Virginian as they are an American. They embrace federalism within a framework of nationalism and are typically staunch supporters of states' rights. They are also more critical of the welfare state than the neoconservatives tend to be. They tend to be critical of overreaching federal power usurping state and local authority. They tend to support freedom, free trade and embrace an isolationist foreign policy, although few call themselves isolationist, and during the Cold War many supported overseas committments as necessary to the defense of the United States. Many paleoconservatives supported NATO when it was a defensive organization despite its being an "entangling alliance" but dropped their support when NATO was used as a mechanism for intervention in Yugoslavia where they believed US interests were either marginal or non-existent. Paleoconservatives often esteem their America First principles as being commensurate with those of the Founding Fathers as embodied in the Neutrality Act. Perhaps a more appropriate organization of the between-wars era was For America. It should be noted that Taft and the isolationists upheld the principle that politics stops at the water's edge and supported World War II once the US was involved. John Quincy Adams avowed, "America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Neoconservatism

In foreign policy neoconservatives have a tendency to view the world in 1939 terms, comparing adversaries as diverse as the Soviet Union, Osama bin Laden, and China to Nazi Germany, while American leaders such as Reagan and Bush stand in for Winston Churchill. There is also a tendency to accuse leftists, and others who oppose them as being appeasers and/or Anti-American. The fullest account of this is Donald and Frederick Kagan's While America Sleeps, the entirety of which is dedicated to these comparisons.

In addition, neoconservatives have a very strong belief in the ability to install democracy by conquest - comparisons with denazification in Germany and Japan starting in 1945 are often made.

[John Prezioso]

LOL! You wail about labels and then you present MORE! Yeah, the country isn't divided enough...

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prez:

LOL! You wail about labels and then you present MORE! Yeah, the country isn't divided enough...

---

Are you intellectually anemic? Can you not discuss competing political philosophy without trying to oversimplify terms in your mind so as to excuse your concience of the needless deaths of thousands of American soldiers?

John Quincy Adams said, and I quote:

"America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

John Quincy Adams said, and I quote:

"America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

---

You are the master at taking quotes out of context. Are you sure you don't work for CNN?

That quote had NOTHING to do with protecting ourselves from terrorism, and you darn well know it. Talk about propaganda.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prez:

You are the master at taking quotes out of context. Are you sure you don't work for CNN?

That quote had NOTHING to do with protecting ourselves from terrorism, and you darn well know it. Talk about propaganda.

---

Try to refrain from continuing logical fallacy if you want to be taken seriously.

That quote had everything to do with not transplanting Democracy around the world - which when that argument served you when discussing PNAC you totally supported.

Flip-flop.

[John Prezioso]

LOL! You are going to lecture ME on being taken seriously! ROFLMAO! This from the guy that can't sit still for a second and wait for a reply to his "facts". That's good.

[Guest $iLk]

This from a guy who doesn't bother responding to facts and tries changing the subject when uncomfortable facts pop up... just like someone else I know...

"I'm the commander ÔÇö see, I don't need to explain ÔÇö I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president."

ÔÇö as quoted in Bob Woodward's Bush at War

[John Prezioso]

I keep changing the subject huh? Who keeps on bouncing around? Grow up and stand still. What you consider debating with "one hand tied behind my back" is actually debating like an adult.

[Guest $iLk]

You aren't debating. As I stated in another thread - my forum posts don't jump around. They will stay here in blue/gray until you are able to type out a response that doesn't consist of whiny b***ing about how the words move too fast for you.

You have offered nothing to the debate beyond whining that you can't.

Try to hold off on typing out a response until you have the facts available to back it up. I've never seen so much logical fallacy in so short of a time.

[John Prezioso]

Okay, friend. I have tried to get you engaged in a reasonable grown-up exchange of ideas. Instead, you hurl insult after insult. I guess you are afraid of someone who isn't bullied by your thread spamming and doesn't get all worked up by your inflammatory tirades.

[Guest $iLk]

I have offered a single-response in single threads. You refuse to debate them and instead complain that you "won't" debate them because you can't. Your first response to this thread was an idiotic:

LOL! You wail about labels and then you present MORE! Yeah, the country isn't divided enough... [lol]

What exactly did this offer that was constructive to debate?

I called you on it and you responded thus:

You are the master at taking quotes out of context. Are you sure you don't work for CNN?

LOGICAL FALLACY

That quote had NOTHING to do with protecting ourselves from terrorism, and you darn well know it. Talk about propaganda.

STRAWMAN

And after being logically fallacious and being called on it - you responded with this well thought out counter:

LOL! You are going to lecture ME on being taken seriously! ROFLMAO! LOGICAL FALLACYThis from the guy that can't sit still for a second and wait for a reply to his "facts". That's good.

I could go on and on... but the point is you would have been laughed out of a debate club by doing your darndest to use every logical fallacy in the book.

[John Prezioso]

Any time you want to PM me for a REAL discussion, I'm game. Or you can continue to show off your ability to be a child.

Which is it? PM, or spam?

Don't forget, my email is [email protected]

[Guest $iLk]

i.e. "Please stop publicly humiliating me and my arguments because I can't take it!"

[John Prezioso]

Lol! Yep, facts.

Anyway, I'll be the one to extend the olive branch. You don't seem to want to take me up on my offer, so I'll meet you here.

If I got you riled, I apologize. I admit I was trying to goad you a bit, to get you to see the extremes you were taking your line of reason, but it sort of spiraled out of control.

But a lot of what you are posting here is on the fringes of rationality, I was hoping we could at least take it back a little to the "normal". Likening Bush to Hitler, does not really wash with you, does it?

[Guest $iLk]

I'm not saying that Bush = Hitler, but as I've pointed out, drawing comparisons isn't likening the two.

You can compare brick and wood. That's not saying they are the same.

[John Prezioso]

Okay, now that we have established that, I know I'm not talking to a loon!