The Law That Governs Government
- Thread starter dieseldiva
- Start date
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
Is that really the best ya got, o' great listener of Levin ? (... occasionally .....)
Please do give us a holler when you actually have something of substance to share about Levin's constitutional perversion of War Powers and Libya ....
I wasn't the one bragging about knowing someone through a business partner's friend of a friend of a friend.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
And neither was I - I simply stated that an individual (my business partner) met repeatedly with Dr. Paul on a fairly regular basis.
Since he debriefed to myself and several others on what occurred, and what was said, during those meetings - which were, by the way, private - I do have some insight into the nature of the man.
If the above (inaccurate) characterization on your part, is representative of your understanding of the English language, and your level of discernment of the intent of the meaning of other folks' communication, I guess it comes as no great surprise that you are, apparently, such a fan of Levin's ..... I guess one could say:
..... perverters of a feather, flock together .....
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
Ummm....it was sarcasm, something that you should have recognized but I guess I can't be forgetting to use the
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well I asked the question for a few reasons, Rlent may know why.
One of them is the reasoning behind the conservative movement as a whole to spread democracy throughout the world, it is not limited to liberals (Wilsonian or otherwise) but invokes the question what is the real difference between the two if they all act the same with the same goal that taints our country even further?
The idea that we need to be in the middle east or Korea or anywhere else counters the idea of smaller less intrusive government which I thought conservatives wanted to achieve.
The other reason behind it was the idea that Reagan was a conservative, he wasn't in any form and those who champion him as the poster child of the modern conservative movement seem to be just as he is, a closet liberal. He didn't do what he promised, he was a politician and an effective one but no where what he could or should have been. He, like the liberals at the time were trying to accomplish more control and more expansion of the government, not less.
The last reason for the question is, even though Levin is a smart guy, he has a myopic view of a few issues and sometimes does change his tune. He is not a practicing constitutional lawyer - just like others who have talk shows and speak to like-masses - misses a few points or ignores them to make a point. Not to take away from him or his knowledge, the abrasive delivery of the show at times removes from his credibility and shows a childish side of him, while some justify it as being passionate, it isn't.
The puzzling thing to me and maybe to others who caught it is the use of ABC news service on his site. Why Mark are you using a liberal news service when you are screaming about the liberals all the time?
While I am mentioning his site, it really sucks to load and move away from - three computers have the same issues with the applets on the site.
The disconnect seems to be further aggravated by the attack of libertarians by the conservative movement, some using the liberal ideals that are talked about in the negitive by conservatives as being only liberal ideas, one is Libya and the support to move them into a democratic government. The reason I asked about Libya specifically. For many here and on other forums/blogs, they are in support of attacking Libya when there wasn't a justification and of what Tom Wood and others have countered Levin's position, the president doesn't have the power to even consider using the arm forces for such an operation.
On top of that, for a moment removing the Religious component out of the conservative ideology, Kirk and others like him seem to be thinking along the lines of a classic liberal in the beginning but brought the difference to the masses for a number of reasons where conservatism today seems to hijack the classic liberal message of Madisonian style constitutionalism - limited government, consitutionalism, liberty, rule of law - while at the same time trying to expand the government to enforce laws made to change the behaviors of those who don't fit their mold as a "great American".
Hope that makes sense to you guys.
One of them is the reasoning behind the conservative movement as a whole to spread democracy throughout the world, it is not limited to liberals (Wilsonian or otherwise) but invokes the question what is the real difference between the two if they all act the same with the same goal that taints our country even further?
The idea that we need to be in the middle east or Korea or anywhere else counters the idea of smaller less intrusive government which I thought conservatives wanted to achieve.
The other reason behind it was the idea that Reagan was a conservative, he wasn't in any form and those who champion him as the poster child of the modern conservative movement seem to be just as he is, a closet liberal. He didn't do what he promised, he was a politician and an effective one but no where what he could or should have been. He, like the liberals at the time were trying to accomplish more control and more expansion of the government, not less.
The last reason for the question is, even though Levin is a smart guy, he has a myopic view of a few issues and sometimes does change his tune. He is not a practicing constitutional lawyer - just like others who have talk shows and speak to like-masses - misses a few points or ignores them to make a point. Not to take away from him or his knowledge, the abrasive delivery of the show at times removes from his credibility and shows a childish side of him, while some justify it as being passionate, it isn't.
The puzzling thing to me and maybe to others who caught it is the use of ABC news service on his site. Why Mark are you using a liberal news service when you are screaming about the liberals all the time?
While I am mentioning his site, it really sucks to load and move away from - three computers have the same issues with the applets on the site.
The thing about this paragraph is it seems to try to define classic liberalism as conservatism, which it is not by any stretch of the imagination. There is this clear disconnect today as defined by the defenders of conservitive movement between the two philosophies in so much that we can look at Kirk and Buckley's position of what a conservative is (using Kirk's six canons of conservatism) and see that Goldwater is lumped into that group while Reagan is closer to the modern version of conservative or NeoConservative all under the guise of smaller government and a return to freedom/liberty.
The disconnect seems to be further aggravated by the attack of libertarians by the conservative movement, some using the liberal ideals that are talked about in the negitive by conservatives as being only liberal ideas, one is Libya and the support to move them into a democratic government. The reason I asked about Libya specifically. For many here and on other forums/blogs, they are in support of attacking Libya when there wasn't a justification and of what Tom Wood and others have countered Levin's position, the president doesn't have the power to even consider using the arm forces for such an operation.
On top of that, for a moment removing the Religious component out of the conservative ideology, Kirk and others like him seem to be thinking along the lines of a classic liberal in the beginning but brought the difference to the masses for a number of reasons where conservatism today seems to hijack the classic liberal message of Madisonian style constitutionalism - limited government, consitutionalism, liberty, rule of law - while at the same time trying to expand the government to enforce laws made to change the behaviors of those who don't fit their mold as a "great American".
Hope that makes sense to you guys.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Neoconservatism
A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 2010 the highest priority of the neoconservatives is to increase military action by the United States in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and to expand it to an American confrontation against Iran; in 2011 their goals include supporting a military attack on Libya, continuing the Afghanistan War indefinitely, and even suggesting military action against Syria.
Neoconservatives tend to oppose the appointment of social conservatives to high governmental positions, such as nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neoconservatives support candidates who are liberal on social issues instead.
The defining position of a neoconservative is advocacy of an American foreign policy that seeks to install democracy in other nations. That reflects both their emphasis on foreign policy and their downplaying the significance of the differences in cultures and religion around the globe. The neoconservative position was discredited in the failure of democracy in the Iranian elections of 2009.
The neoconservative movement emerged in the mid 1970s, played a limited role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and then had a voice in the Defense Department under the George W. Bush Administration after 9/11. Candidates favored by neoconservatives for president in 2012 include Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence and, to a lesser extent because she pulls support away those candidates, Sarah Palin.
Some prominent spokesmen include Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Schwartz, Elliott Abrams, Ben Wattenberg and Carl Gershman.
In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues and differences, are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with conservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do.
############# I'm so happy I looked this up#######
View attachment 2776 there will not be a test on this.
So in other words, a neocon is a liberal with balls.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
I love the jumping on Reagan for being a neo-conservative, or a closet liberal. Last I remember, Reagan had a liberal Congress - first a Dem House/Repub Senate, then a Dem House/Senate. It was Reagan's fault for trusting them on the largest tax increase. Congress promised him they would slash $3 in spending for every $1 in tax increase. They slashed 39 cents. The other time he was waylaid by Congress was on the immigration bill. They promised to build a wall, which we know they never did.
Now on to Levin. Sorry, Rlent. I have to disagree with you on Levin. Just because he has one or two hallmarks of a neocon, it doesn't necessarily make him one. If that were the case, I would be one too. Hell... all libertarians would. I may not agree with Levin on some things I used to, but I still call him conservative. He despises the government, thru and thru. He despises judicial activism. He supports states' rights. So he wants to straighten out a couple of thug dictators.
Let's see... Wilson was a warmonger. Was he a neocon? Was Roosevelt? How about Kennedy? LBJ was a BIG warmonger... not to mention evil to the core; yet he wasn't a neocon... just a liberal, racist a-hole. Nixon... eh... yeah I would say he was, except for the fact he got us out of Vietnam. Ford... same thing. Reagan detested war... so much so, he built up our arsenal so we didn't have to go to war. Daddy Bush... can I get a HELL YEAH!? Clinton? He was a warmongering liberal... yet he had no stomach for war. Nope. And Jr... Not at first. But he quickly became fond of gubmint spending. Yeah... like fadda like son. Obama is like Clinton... warmonger who faints at the sight of blood, unless it was he who called in the hit.
So you see, not all warmongers are neocons. But if you brand everyone who smells like a neocon a neocon, you'd have to brand Ron Paul such also. Afterall, he doesn't oppose homosexuality. There's one strike against him. He's not against abortion, even tho he thinks it's a state issue. There's another strike. Should we give him the benefit of the doubt? Have you ever LISTENED to Mark Levin?
Now on to Levin. Sorry, Rlent. I have to disagree with you on Levin. Just because he has one or two hallmarks of a neocon, it doesn't necessarily make him one. If that were the case, I would be one too. Hell... all libertarians would. I may not agree with Levin on some things I used to, but I still call him conservative. He despises the government, thru and thru. He despises judicial activism. He supports states' rights. So he wants to straighten out a couple of thug dictators.
Let's see... Wilson was a warmonger. Was he a neocon? Was Roosevelt? How about Kennedy? LBJ was a BIG warmonger... not to mention evil to the core; yet he wasn't a neocon... just a liberal, racist a-hole. Nixon... eh... yeah I would say he was, except for the fact he got us out of Vietnam. Ford... same thing. Reagan detested war... so much so, he built up our arsenal so we didn't have to go to war. Daddy Bush... can I get a HELL YEAH!? Clinton? He was a warmongering liberal... yet he had no stomach for war. Nope. And Jr... Not at first. But he quickly became fond of gubmint spending. Yeah... like fadda like son. Obama is like Clinton... warmonger who faints at the sight of blood, unless it was he who called in the hit.
So you see, not all warmongers are neocons. But if you brand everyone who smells like a neocon a neocon, you'd have to brand Ron Paul such also. Afterall, he doesn't oppose homosexuality. There's one strike against him. He's not against abortion, even tho he thinks it's a state issue. There's another strike. Should we give him the benefit of the doubt? Have you ever LISTENED to Mark Levin?
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Is that really the best ya got, o' great listener of Levin ? (... occasionally .....
Please do give us a holler when you actually have something of substance to share about Levin's constitutional perversion of War Powers and Libya ....
Someone else has just been taken to the............