Term def. - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Term def.

Posted by denny_shibby on Apr-19-2005 09:48:

Term def.

Neo Conservative was originally pawned by a few liberals to label JEWISH people that switched from liberal to conservative sides because of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Isn't it weird that liberals have to always point out race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation when talking about many people. Another example is when people talk about the anti Hillary guy in Mass. forgot his name, but apparently he is a self loathing GAY according to Clinton. Don't acuse me of playing these cards I am just pointing out the people who do play those cards--Liberals.

Posted by Shakka on Apr-19-2005 13:12:

Re: Term def.

quote:
Originally posted by denny_shibby
Neo Conservative was originally pawned by a few liberals to label JEWISH people that switched from liberal to conservative sides because of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Isn't it weird that liberals have to always point out race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation when talking about many people. Another example is when people talk about the anti Hillary guy in Mass. forgot his name, but apparently he is a self loathing GAY according to Clinton. Don't acuse me of playing these cards I am just pointing out the people who do play those cards--Liberals.

Are you referring to Barney Frank? I don't know that he loathes Hillary, but he is definitely gay.

I think you're going to get yourself into trouble with commentary like this that stokes the fire. Not saying I necessarily disagree with your premise(I think both sides are good at coming up with stupid labels for eachother), however the argument should focus on idealogical differences, not name calling(or who is doing said name calling).

Posted by George Smiley on Apr-19-2005 14:02:

Re: Term def.

Posted by denny_shibby on Apr-19-2005 14:42:

Okay it depends on what you mean by you can't go further to the right than liberalism. If you the libertarian def. liberals you are right. If you are basing that on some bs regarding the stupid notion that conservatives are fiscally cons., haven't been for limited gov., blah, blah, you are wrong. I use the term liberal to lump democrats, socialists, marxists, etc. the same in economic terms because all are command economy parties. This doesn't mean that I don't recognize difference between them that only comes from knowing stances on other issues than economics.

Not Barney Frank here all find it right now. This guy is heading an anti Hillary group thats soul goal is to prevent her from being elected. The guys been in the shadows for a while and the word is that he is really effective, which has liberals all worried. According to Clinton he is a SELF loathing gay. Thats an insult on the gay community if you don't pick that up. Arthur Finkelstein is the name.

The funny thing is that the dems do this shit all the time. I mean talk about courdinated efforts to bring to a politician, take a look at their treatment of Bush. There are hundreds of groups that had a soul purpose of stop Bush now, but the press actually make this Finkelstein is a first. How cute.

Not everything has to focus on bad/good policy. I can start new threads that pick out bad political practices of another party. If I don't talk about them who will?

Posted by George Smiley on Apr-19-2005 14:47:

quote:
Originally posted by denny_shibby
Okay it depends on what you mean by you can't go further to the right than liberalism. If you the libertarian def. liberals you are right. If you are basing that on some bs regarding the stupid notion that conservatives are fiscally cons., haven't been for limited gov., blah, blah, you are wrong. I use the term liberal to lump democrats, socialists, marxists, etc. the same in economic terms because all are command economy parties. This doesn't mean that I don't recognize difference between them that only comes from knowing stances on other issues than economics.

Not Barney Frank here all find it right now. This guy is heading an anti Hillary group thats soul goal is to prevent her from being elected. The guys been in the shadows for a while and the word is that he is really effective, which has liberals all worried. According to Clinton he is a SELF loathing gay. Thats an insult on the gay community if you don't pick that up. Arthur Finkelstein is the name.

Not everything has to focus on bad/good policy. I can start new threads that pick out bad political practices of another party. If I don't talk about them who will?

The fact that you use the term liberal to describe Marxists proves that you do not know what you are talking about at just for extra laughs, you give your reasons for describing them as "liberal" because they all are command economy parties!!! If you had gone the political side of ideology you might have been able to argue it but you base it on economics!!! your funny!

Posted by denny_shibby on Apr-19-2005 15:14:

Are you trying to tell me that you don't think Marxism of all I mentioned is a command economy party? Wow, your funny.

Posted by denny_shibby on Apr-19-2005 15:19:

What do you think that Marxism is some how on OUR end of the political spectrum? If you believe that then your more fucking retarded then I thought.

Posted by George Smiley on Apr-19-2005 15:21:

Now go back and read my post. You will notice that I am laughing at you because you have labelled a collection of ideologies liberal and described them all as having a planned economy. Let me spell it out to you - you have just said that ideologies that have planned economies are liberal...

And this joker calls ME a retard!!!

Posted by denny_shibby on Apr-19-2005 16:02:

As I said before like several posts ago it depends on the definition of Liberal. I use the one that for a long time has been used to describe democrats, labour party, etc. If you assume that, then you have to extend to socialists and marxists because those fucking democrats and labour party have built their power transforming their countries into MORE command economies. Just please provide the definition of liberal you are going to cite and then maybe this joke of fucking argument will be dealt with.

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Apr-19-2005 16:21:

Re: Term def.

quote:
Originally posted by denny_shibby
Neo Conservative was originally pawned by a few liberals to label JEWISH people that switched from liberal to conservative sides because of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Isn't it weird that liberals have to always point out race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation when talking about many people. Another example is when people talk about the anti Hillary guy in Mass. forgot his name, but apparently he is a self loathing GAY according to Clinton. Don't acuse me of playing these cards I am just pointing out the people who do play those cards--Liberals.

This post not only demonstrates your complete and utter ignorance, but your lack of historical understanding of any sort. It doesn�t surprise me, given your previous posts, that you have absolutely no understanding of neoconservatism and its historical roots.

And where the fuck did you get the idea that liberals �pawned� this term, as a result of a number of neocons being of Jewish dissent?

And you reach for our pity for not playing cards on your ridiculous and outright dumbfuck generalizations on us poor widdle liberals.

Jesus, are you ever going to bring a cogent argument to the table?

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Apr-19-2005 16:31:

quote:
Okay it depends on what you mean by you can't go further to the right than liberalism. If you the libertarian def. liberals you are right. If you are basing that on some bs regarding the stupid notion that conservatives are fiscally cons., haven't been for limited gov., blah, blah, you are wrong. I use the term liberal to lump democrats, socialists, marxists, etc. the same in economic terms because all are command economy parties. This doesn't mean that I don't recognize difference between them that only comes from knowing stances on other issues than economics.

Well so far you haven�t shown to be inept at understanding the differences between folks on the Left in any manner, nor do you seem to fucking care. Rather, you seem to Coulter everyone all together as one eeevil group that�s against you.
If I didn�t know any better, one may say you�re quite fucking paranoid.

quote:
Not Barney Frank here all find it right now. This guy is heading an anti Hillary group thats soul goal is to prevent her from being elected. The guys been in the shadows for a while and the word is that he is really effective, which has liberals all worried. According to Clinton he is a SELF loathing gay. Thats an insult on the gay community if you don't pick that up. Arthur Finkelstein is the name.

Oh, Finkelstein:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...DAD0894DD404482
The reason why us �liberals� are against this douchebag is because as a consultant, he supported GOP wingnutters who demonized liberals AND continuously voted against gay rights, and then turned around and civil unioned his partner.

quote:
The funny thing is that the dems do this shit all the time. I mean talk about courdinated efforts to bring to a politician, take a look at their treatment of Bush. There are hundreds of groups that had a soul purpose of stop Bush now, but the press actually make this Finkelstein is a first. How cute.

Oh I find it much more cuter to point out the fucking hypocrisy and continual contradiction of members in your party, just like your boy Finkelstein here.

quote:
Not everything has to focus on bad/good policy. I can start new threads that pick out bad political practices of another party. If I don't talk about them who will?

Well considering you really haven�t shown shit so far, and whatever slight examples you have shown when compared to the bad policies and practices of this current Administration and GOP Congress your examples are quite trite, why am I not surprised, yet again?

Posted by George Smiley on Apr-20-2005 21:34:

quote:
Originally posted by denny_shibby
Just please provide the definition of liberal you are going to cite and then maybe this joke of fucking argument will be dealt with.

There is only one definition of liberalism...

Posted by josh4 on Apr-20-2005 22:22:

Re: Re: Term def.

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
This post not only demonstrates your complete and utter ignorance, but your lack of historical understanding of any sort. It doesn�t surprise me, given your previous posts, that you have absolutely no understanding of neoconservatism and its historical roots.

And where the fuck did you get the idea that liberals �pawned� this term, as a result of a number of neocons being of Jewish dissent?

And you reach for our pity for not playing cards on your ridiculous and outright dumbfuck generalizations on us poor widdle liberals.

Jesus, are you ever going to bring a cogent argument to the table?

Care to set the record straight? I'm interested to know.

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Apr-21-2005 00:08:

Re: Re: Re: Term def.

quote:
Originally posted by josh4
Care to set the record straight? I'm interested to know.

Umm, err uhh, huh? Guess I'm not sure what you mean.

Posted by Trancer-X on Apr-21-2005 00:49:

Re: Term def.

quote:
Originally posted by denny_shibby
Neo Conservative was originally pawned by a few liberals to label JEWISH people that switched from liberal to conservative sides because of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Isn't it weird that liberals have to always point out race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation when talking about many people. Another example is when people talk about the anti Hillary guy in Mass. forgot his name, but apparently he is a self loathing GAY according to Clinton. Don't acuse me of playing these cards I am just pointing out the people who do play those cards--Liberals.

Dude, if I really wanted to hear an ass talk, I would fart.

Try doing a little research for once. And lay off the Faux News, it's rotting your brain.

You can start here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.pht...r_of_Nightmares

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon...(United_States)

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Posted by Trancer-X on Apr-21-2005 00:50:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Term def.

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Umm, err uhh, huh? Guess I'm not sure what you mean.

That makes two of us.

Posted by josh4 on Apr-21-2005 06:51:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Term def.

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Umm, err uhh, huh? Guess I'm not sure what you mean.

Provide more elaboration on the correct origins of the neocons. Though as I write this I find there is a thread which seems to address just this so I will go peruse that.