World War III

PolkThug

At first I didn't understand why Lebanon would let Hezbollah exist. This is why:

"Hezbollah not only has armed and political wings but also boasts an extensive social development programme. The civilian wing also runs hospitals, news services, and educational facilities. Its Reconstruction Campaign ('Jihad al-Bina') is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructural development projects in Lebanon.The group currently operates at least four hospitals, 12 clinics, 12 schools, and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental department and an extensive social assistance programme. Medical care is also cheaper than in most of the country's private hospitals and free for Hezbollah members. Most experts believe that Hezbollah's social and health programmes are worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Hezbollah mainly gets its money from donations. It is widely thought that Hezbollah receives financial help from Iran and Syria, although Iran denies this, and Hezbollah denies receiving aid from Syria." -wikipedia

tommyboy

Demiurge wrote:

You've got absolutely no frame of reference about what was at stake then, and the amount of death and destruction that was felt around the globe.

What the hell does that mean. Were you alive when that war happened. NO. Everyone knows what was at stake with that war. And there were liberals just like today that fought in that war, and didn't put up a white flag. You want to know why, there was a good reason to fight.

Demiurge wrote:

This country is in a sad state of affairs if we can't even stomach killing the enemy, and the idea that civilians are going to die. We wouldn't have made it off of Omaha Beach in WW2 with the foriegn policy you guys support. You're total pussies, and you'll be the demise of this country. When this war escalates, and it is inevitable, it'll be you guys that will be the bane of our existence.

Well, its seems like your "foriegn policy" is starting the bane of our existence. The only thing the Iraq war had done is give muslims more reason to hate us.



I knew this thread would become another stupid liberal vs. conservative fight.

Demi, you do you agree with every war we have been in since WWII?
The only war since then I believe we should have been in is the war in afghanistan, which of course became a second war to Iraq (and I still don't understand why, we were attacked by al-queda, not Iraq).

BIZILL

the world hates us. been that way since before i was born (1975). if we sit back at idle, then the world will breed its minions against us. let's sit back and watch the story unfold while feeding our fat faces with popcorn and soda. ......"OFFENSE!", i say. and what polk thug posted is just an example of terrorists, 'setting up shop'.

jderdock

Demiurge wrote:

Was something I said untrue?

It's hard to take anyone serious when their retort turns personal. You've made a huge assumption about my political preferences. If you must know, I tend to fall under the far right Libertarien umbrella: pro-gun, pro-small government, anti-drug war.

Demiurge wrote:

You call America as it exists today a parallel to **** Germany.

I suggest you re-read my post. You saw the words **** Germany and focused in on that, even with the disclaimer that followed. I chose **** Germany as an example of masterful political spin because their extremist policies lead to their eventual demise...much like how I feel our current foreign policy is putting us in an unenviable position that is not in the best interest of our country.

Demiurge wrote:

Calling an enemy who hides among women and children savages is now decried by the lefties in this thread as wrong.

It is wrong, but it's an ugly reality when a major nuclear superpower goes to war with a guerilla army who has no real "bases" and is incapable of defending itself in open terrain. From our point of view, it's barbaric...from their point of view, it's life or death for civilization as they know it.

Demiurge wrote:

Hezbollah cheers and brags when they kill civilians and Israel apologizes. I can't imagine where some of your viewpoints must come from. If you don't like Israel, fine, but they have every right to live in a world without constant fear of an enemy that wants each and every last one of them dead.

It's not that I don't "like" Israel...I just question some of their tactical decisions. By actively keeping Palestine from developing a decent economy, Israel is making themselves enemies; poverty will always breed extremism in some form. But again, it's not as cut and dry as that...there is a lot of grey area. If I could offer a viable solution, I wouldn't be bullshitting on message board. I'm pro-Israel, but I'm not anti-Palestine. Neither are 100% right.

Demiurge wrote:

This country is in a sad state of affairs if we can't even stomach killing the enemy, and the idea that civilians are going to die. We wouldn't have made it off of Omaha Beach in WW2 with the foriegn policy you guys support. You're total pussies, and you'll be the demise of this country. When this war escalates, and it is inevitable, it'll be you guys that will be the bane of our existence.

You do have to understand how it's difficult to have a semi-intelligent conversation when operating on this level.

My life long best friend, college roommate and now neighbor is in Iraq and will be until next summer. Since the invasion of Iraq, we've lost 2500+ Americans and 50,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. We've increased the influence and power of the very dangerous Iranian government and turned many of our allies against us. I'm not sure who you're referring to as "you pussies", but I don't see the how current foreign policy is NOT contributing to a more hostile world stage and "our demise".

ND13

PolkThug wrote:

At first I didn't understand why Lebanon would let Hezbollah exist. This is why:

"Hezbollah not only has armed and political wings but also boasts an extensive social development programme. The civilian wing also runs hospitals, news services, and educational facilities. Its Reconstruction Campaign ('Jihad al-Bina') is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructural development projects in Lebanon.The group currently operates at least four hospitals, 12 clinics, 12 schools, and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental department and an extensive social assistance programme. Medical care is also cheaper than in most of the country's private hospitals and free for Hezbollah members. Most experts believe that Hezbollah's social and health programmes are worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Hezbollah mainly gets its money from donations. It is widely thought that Hezbollah receives financial help from Iran and Syria, although Iran denies this, and Hezbollah denies receiving aid from Syria." -wikipedia

Yeah, so did the **** regime.:rolleyes:

jderdock

MacLeod wrote:

Yeah, they provide free health care in their utopian society.

They also dont allow women to appear in public without looking like a walking tent.

That's a cultural difference and none of my business.

MacLeod wrote:

They also behead innocent civillians on video tape.

Hezbollah or Al Qaeda? Yes, both are behind the times and I am not for capital punishment in any form.

MacLeod wrote:

They also strap bombs onto their wives and children and then blow up restaurants and hospitals.

Yeah, this is extremely unfortunate. HOWEVER, our value systems are completely different. We have the luxury of the world's largest military to defend our homes. We have the luxury of valuing the lives of women and children. They don't see it that way and we can't begin to relate. I'm not for this practice in any way.

MacLeod wrote:

nd then let us not forget the whole "planes into buildings" thing.

Hezbollah?

MacLeod wrote:

And this is so stupid Im not sure how to even respond to it. Its because of this global economy that the global quality of life is many times better than its ever been in history.

I'm not against a global econonmy...I was simply stating that these sort of extremist regimes will be one of the nasty byproducts of such an arrangement.

mrbigbluelight

(not hungry, but starving), mend their wounds when they are in danger of dying, provide them shelter for protection, than you are well on the way to being okay in my book.

Fortunately, in this country, it is a great rarity to find oneself in the above position.

So it's understandably harder to empathize with those who are in that position.

The fact that Hezboolah is largely responsible for creating the situation that put your child under 50 tons of rubble must be hard to acknowledge for these people.
That Israeli jets were attempting to just bomb the group that last night was launching rockets 50 yards from your home or place of refuge must become a distant thought when you watch rescuers use your child's intestines as a rope to retrieve his mangled body from the debris.

A large majority of Hezboolah "fighters" are probably people not a whole lot different than you or I.
Are the leaders of Hezboolah possible monsters ? I would say absolutely yes.
Evil sociopaths would be a mild term to describe them.
To cut off the head of the snake while leaving the body alone is an extremely difficult task, but the Israeli's have to perform this task well, or they are in serious, if not fatal, trouble.

The Hezboolah are very happy that they've been able to bear-bait the Israelis into attacking them.
That the extremely intelligent and politically savy Israelis have taken the bait (or so it seems) tells me one thing: they're trying to bait Iran into entering this ruckus. That tactic could only be attempted with the US's approval beforehand. Why would the Israelis and the US want Iran to enter this mess ? Something to think about, I would suggest.

As for the Hezboolah "leaders": the Chinese used to have an ancient torture. They'd put a criminal into a large jar that was filled with sesame seed oil. After a long time, the body and organs would desolve. Extremely painful process, much worse than the Death by a Thousand Cuts.
I think of that because that would be an appropriate end for the monsters that Hezboolah harbors.

cfrizz

Demi you constantly prove why it is a good idea to have you on my ignore list!

Unless you are serving in one of our Armed Forces, you have no business labeling anyone a p****!

I'm sure that there are plenty of service people over there risking thier lives that don't agree with our goverments position. BUT THEY ARE OVER THEIR DOING IT ANYWAY!

If you feel that strongly GO SIGN UP or shut up with the labels & insults!

jderdock

mrbigbluelight wrote:

To cut off the head of the snake while leaving the body alone is an extremely difficult task, but the Israeli's have to perform this task well, or they are in serious, if not fatal, trouble.

Yes, but the "head" isn't really in Lebanon, is it?

(good post, btw)

PolkThug

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Mel Gibson had this to say, "“The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” and asked the officer, James Mee, “Are you a Jew?”

jdhdiggs

jderdock wrote:

If you must know, I tend to fall under the far right Libertarien umbrella: pro-gun, pro-small government, anti-drug war.

You might want to revisit this. Every stance you have taken has been directly opposed to the viewpoints of this group. I can believe that you are pro-drugs though. You have brought up "big" government as an example of the good the Hezbo's do, you are against fighting the enemy on the enemies soil, you've spoken out against capital punishment... Where exactly are these "far-right" ideas?

Demi fits that description far more than you ever possibly could....

cfrizz

Did you see a picture of him? for a minute I thought the crackpot was Hussein when the first pulled him out of the hole he was hiding in!. That's how bad he looked!:eek: I think he just torpedoed his career right in to the toilet!:rolleyes: We should chase his ignorant butt back to Australia!

PolkThug wrote:

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Mel Gibson had this to say, "“The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” and asked the officer, James Mee, “Are you a Jew?”

Demiurge

tommyboy wrote:

What the hell does that mean. Were you alive when that war happened. NO. Everyone knows what was at stake with that war. And there were liberals just like today that fought in that war, and didn't put up a white flag. You want to know why, there was a good reason to fight.

It means exactly what I said. If you think what's happening in Iraq, Afganistan, and now Lebanon is so outrageous, you wouldn't have been able to stand what happened in just the first couple of hours of WW2 without cowering in the corner wetting your pants.

Also, you're out of your mind if you think the liberals today are the liberals of the Greatest Generation. My Grandfather was a Democrat, he's still alive today, and is considered a rather conservative man by todays standards. The loony direction your ideology has gone to is absurd.

The same Jews that are under threat of extermination by Hitler are the same Jews that the Muslims are trying to exterminate today. Who has exercised the willingness to try and live a peaceful existence with it's neighbors? Israel. Who can't play nice, or not at all? Islam.

It's not hard to see who the enemy is, but the linguine spined lefty twits in the country want to make it impossible for our military to do their job, as well as our allies.

tommyboy wrote:

Well, its seems like your "foriegn policy" is starting the bane of our existence. The only thing the Iraq war had done is give muslims more reason to hate us.

Do you try to reason with a man wielding a knife trying to kill you, or do you kill him?

Why is this so hard to understand? Hate is hate, they don't like you period. They want you dead. There's no talking. Israel is living proof why diplomacy doesn't work with these people. They're incapable of living on this planet with anyone of a different belief system. Nobody said they had to like the Jews, but they don't need to constantly try and wipe them out.

tommyboy wrote:

Demi, you do you agree with every war we have been in since WWII?
The only war since then I believe we should have been in is the war in afghanistan, which of course became a second war to Iraq (and I still don't understand why, we were attacked by al-queda, not Iraq).

Yes, I do. We're the World's Police force.

We're in Iraq because there was evidence of him harboring WMDs. He also raped, murdered and maimed women, children, and men by the tens of thousands. Ever seen a mass grave in Iraq? It's not pretty. Would you rather pretend that wasn't going on our do something about it? There were 500 of depleted (but still dangerous) WMDs found in Iraq a month ago, but the slanted media doesn't report it. Instead our own armed forces has to blog on the internet to get their side of the story out since our own media won't do their jobs.

Afghanistan was never the end game. He called it an Axis of evil, which included Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Did you really think it was going to end there? Al-Qaida isn't a country.

Demiurge

cfrizz wrote:

Demi you constantly prove why it is a good idea to have you on my ignore list!

Unless you are serving in one of our Armed Forces, you have no business labeling anyone a p****!

I'm sure that there are plenty of service people over there risking thier lives that don't agree with our goverments position. BUT THEY ARE OVER THEIR DOING IT ANYWAY!

If you feel that strongly GO SIGN UP or shut up with the labels & insults!

I love this argument, if you're not in the military you're not allowed to comment on it. :rolleyes:

Stick to your typical:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

responses, they're easier to take seriously.

jderdock

jdhdiggs wrote:

You might want to revisit this. Every stance you have taken has been directly opposed to the viewpoints of this group.

Name one?

jdhdiggs wrote:

You have brought up "big" government as an example of the good the Hezbo's do

The good Hezbollah does for Hezbollah. You have to compare apples to apples.

jdhdiggs wrote:

you are against fighting the enemy on the enemies soil

Not when it's necessary

jdhdiggs wrote:

you've spoken out against capital punishment...

There is no official Libertarien stance on captial punishment. In fact, it's a hotly debated topic. I'm against it as I feel it's another arm of big government.

jdhdiggs wrote:

Where exactly are these "far-right" ideas?

"Far-right" has taken on a different connotation since the rise of neo-conservatism.

ohskigod

jderdock wrote:

That's a cultural difference and none of my business.

would all of there mistreatment of women be chalked up to a cultural difference? women are treated like subhuman animals over there. they are killed, mutilated, and disgraced for the most trivial of offenses, like wanting to get an education and having an individual thought.

what you call a cultural difference, I call flat out wrong. these, and many other cultural differences are the base reasons for the differences between the radical aspect of the middle east and the west overall. This conflic was coming no matter what we did. People like to say that its us that drives it, and that opinion staggers me. They are religious extremists that will use every means nessecary to wipe out our way of life, because they do not agree with it.

There will allways be wars popping up. and arguments can be made that they are all for the wrong reasons, but I look at it this way. is our way of life right, or is theres. I say its ours. while its not perfect, it flat out respects people's individual freedoms and basic human rights than your typical Islamic nations do. therefore, I'll cheer for our side thank you very much.

ohskigod

I wonder if we can chalk up the holocaust to a cultural difference.

jderdock

ohskigod wrote:

would all of there mistreatment of women be chalked up to a cultural difference? women are treated like subhuman animals over there. they are killed, mutilated, and disgraced for the most trivial of offenses, like wanting to get an education and having an individual thought.

i completely agree.

These sort of practices also take place in tribal Africa. We hold our values to be more "englightened", because I they are. We are also hundreds of years ahead of these countries in most areas. Remember, we had racial segregation not all that long ago.

ND13

There is no way for Israel or the rest of the world to appease the radical Muslims. It wouldn't matter if we(the rest of humanity) gave the Muslims all of their so-called ancestral lands back, built a huge wall to keep us out(or them in), and kissed their harry asses from now til the end of time, they still wouldn't be happy until they rid the earth of the "infidels". Sorry, but that's the way it is and we can't change their minds.

Demiurge

jderdock wrote:

It's hard to take anyone serious when their retort turns personal. You've made a huge assumption about my political preferences. If you must know, I tend to fall under the far right Libertarien umbrella: pro-gun, pro-small government, anti-drug war.

Calling you a liberal is a personal attack? Notice I don't care if anyone calls me a conservative? Kind of funny that being called liberal isn't something to be proud of anymore.

If you're a libertarian, I'm a communist.

jderdock wrote:

I suggest you re-read my post. You saw the words **** Germany and focused in on that, even with the disclaimer that followed. I chose **** Germany as an example of masterful political spin because their extremist policies lead to their eventual demise...much like how I feel our current foreign policy is putting us in an unenviable position that is not in the best interest of our country.

Trust me, I read it. I appreciate the attempts at backpeddling, but any reference of **** Germany as a parallel to the United States of America is a moronic one. 'scuse me if that's name calling.

jderdock wrote:

It is wrong, but it's an ugly reality when a major nuclear superpower goes to war with a guerilla army who has no real "bases" and is incapable of defending itself in open terrain. From our point of view, it's barbaric...from their point of view, it's life or death for civilization as they know it.

Hezbollah wouldn't have a thing to worry about if they didn't poke their finger in the eye of Israel. Israel has been far too restrained. They've been dealing with mini-9/11s obstensively since 1946. Now they're the enemy for responding? Why is it Israels problem that these goons hide behind skirts and baby rattles? This group is to blame for every death Israel has inflicted on it's people.

jderdock wrote:

It's not that I don't "like" Israel...I just question some of their tactical decisions. By actively keeping Palestine from developing a decent economy, Israel is making themselves enemies; poverty will always breed extremism in some form. But again, it's not as cut and dry as that...there is a lot of grey area. If I could offer a viable solution, I wouldn't be bullshitting on message board. I'm pro-Israel, but I'm not anti-Palestine. Neither are 100% right.

Is Palestine a country? No, it's not. It's not a state, so they might as well get over it. You're trying to portray Islamic terrorists as innocent little victims, and then telling me you're pro-Israel. Your posts don't show that you support Israel.

Have you looked at a map lately? Look at little tiny Israel compared to the Muslim world. To say that Israel is the bully, and they're using 'questionable tactics' is absurd!

They've been taking beatdowns since 1946 as a country, and now when Israel fights back and bloodies the bullies nose it's so terrible and wrong.

jderdock wrote:

You do have to understand how it's difficult to have a semi-intelligent conversation when operating on this level.

My life long best friend, college roommate and now neighbor is in Iraq and will be until next summer. Since the invasion of Iraq, we've lost 2500+ Americans and 50,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. We've increased the influence and power of the very dangerous Iranian government and turned many of our allies against us. I'm not sure who you're referring to as "you pussies", but I don't see the how current foreign policy is NOT contributing to a more hostile world stage and "our demise".

It's hard to have a conversation with someone whose frame of reference is so skewed. You talk about WW2 (Do you know the civilian and troop casualties in that war?), but the war were fighting now somehow has no justification. You'll equate our country in some mind numbing fashion to **** Germany, but it's so hard to see the people we're fighting as little Hitlers that want to wipe out anyone who isn't Muslim, including their own tired masses.

I have family in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak. My best friend is a Navy SEAL in active duty in these operations as well. I send out packages all the time to them, and I care about their safety. They believe in their mission, they support our President's actions there, and they love our country. If you don't, fine, but it gets personal when you who can't see who the enemy is, and would blame us. That's a whole world apart from not supporting the war.

Some of you are living in a world of tea or crumpets where terrorists will someday enjoy them with you on a sunny day.

I'm living in a world where I see an enemy who wants my country, and everyone in it dead, including the pascifists who just want to talk. I choose defending ourselves rather than waiting for the next attack. It's kill or be killed, and you're a **** if you won't fight.

Peace through superior firepower.

Demiurge

ND13 wrote:

There is no way for Israel or the rest of the world to appease the Muslims. It wouldn't matter if we(the rest of humanity) gave the Muslims all of their so-called ancestral lands back, built a huge wall to keep us out(or them in), and kissed their harry asses from now til the end of time, they still wouldn't be happy until they rid the earth of the "infidels". Sorry, but that's the way it is and we can't change their minds.

This is exactly it.

aaharvel

Demiurge wrote:

Also, you're out of your mind if you think the liberals today are the liberals of the Greatest Generation.

Democrats have evolved (or devolved depending on your POV) but at least they haven't taken the road of Republicans and Conservatives. Thanks to the rise of the neo-conservative movement, they've turned an entire 180 since the Civil Rights movement and the backlash to the culture war.

But of course we can't fault for Conservatives for anything. After all, they're not the ones in power, they're not the ones that pass the laws. :rolleyes:



btw, Dave how is that B&K amp doing for you?

jderdock

You can have the last word, Demiurge. Good luck...I hope your friends and family make it back safely.

jdhdiggs

jderdock wrote:

Name one?.

Did, I listed several. Why don't you point out the conservative viewpoint you have taken?

jderdock wrote:

The good Hezbollah does for Hezbollah. You have to compare apples to apples.

But as a Libertarian, this is a bad thing. Plus causing Isreal to bomb the place isn't very healthy for the population

jderdock wrote:

Not when it's necessary?.

When would that be? Would that be after the largest sneak attack against our country? Would it be after having generations of the enemy blowing up themselves in your country? When exactly would it be neccessary? When they start knocking on your door asking for donations....

jderdock wrote:

There is no official Libertarien stance on captial punishment. In fact, it's a hotly debated topic. I'm against it as I feel it's another arm of big government.

Which would push you firmly to the left, not right.

jderdock wrote:

"Far-right" has taken on a different connotation since the rise of neo-conservatism.

Neo-conservatism? Lovely. Before that, "Far-right" was called fascist. Can we start calling you the fascist lib then? It seems to fit your contradictions.

jdhdiggs

aaharvel wrote:

Democrats have evolved (or devolved depending on your POV) but at least they haven't taken the road of Republicans and Conservatives. Thanks to the rise of the neo-conservative movement, they've turned an entire 180 since the Civil Rights movement and the backlash to the culture war.

Uh, what? Where is this? Can you give examples? What defines a neo-con? Are these "Reagonites"? If so, few are left in power anywhere. Now you have to be a big government, moderate, compassionate conservative to get elected...

aaharvel wrote:

But of course we can't fault for Conservatives for anything. After all, they're not the ones in power, they're not the ones that pass the laws. :rolleyes:

When you have to make up for 50 years of screwups, it takes a while!

Besides, anymore JFK would be an extreme right winger and Lincoln would be compared to Hitler which is how much the mainstream has shifted left. Think about it...

aaharvel

Neo-con. Meaning new conservative. Yes, it started around the Reagan era.

It used to mean a liberal who expressed conservative views, such as Zell Miller. But it's evolved into someone who leans towards social authoritianism in the name of morals and religion, white protestant. No, it's not facism. Far from it, but the roots of both are very similar. One needs to look no further than Terri Schiavo and the NSA spy controversy. Small government?

Also, instead of saving money (true conservatives), money is instead spent, but not funneled back into the social system itself. Wanna know why our roads, public schools, etc. are under-funded? There ya' go. Tax-cuts for the rich, trickle down economics. One of Steve Forbes retarded economic ideas. Also, unlike traditional conservatives, and like liberals, conservatives tend to second-hand spend. But again, instead of investing in social programs that aid the lower and middle class, those same funds instead go to tax cuts, trickle-down, without putting money back into the actual social system they run.

On the other hand, you have socialism. Communism, which is just as bad.
Imo Socialism is noble in theory but terrible in practice.

Oh and regarding Lincoln, you're right. Afterall, Hitler didn't exterminate the Jews. He freed them from slavery. lol

<a href="http://photobucket.com&quot; target="_blank"><img src="http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j101/aaharvel/120px-Cowbell2.gif&quot; border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

jderdock

jdhdiggs wrote:

When would that be? Would that be after the largest sneak attack against our country? Would it be after having generations of the enemy blowing up themselves in your country? When exactly would it be neccessary? When they start knocking on your door asking for donations....

I was not against the raids on Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

jdhdiggs wrote:

Which would push you firmly to the left, not right.

Agree to disagree. On a superficial level, yes...when you dig deeper and look at party platforms, that's not necessarily true.

jdhdiggs wrote:

Neo-conservatism? Lovely. Before that, "Far-right" was called fascist. Can we start calling you the fascist lib then? It seems to fit your contradictions.

Neo-conservatism is an invalid term?

jdhdiggs

Neo-con?

No, its just slang like calling you the name demi did and you objected.

Basically, it's used by people wanting to say: "I'm conservative, but I'm no 'NEO-CON', I'm not evil like them..." Or someone trying to demonize conservative ideals. Besides, didn't you say that you were "far right" until neo-cons screwed it up? So fascist would fit, no?

Sigh, I'll ask again, where have you shown a conservative (or "right" leaning viewpoint?)

Party platforms? Not buying it. Either you believe the rights of one person supercedes another or it doesn't. One's a conservative viewpoint, the other liberal. It's really simple, no deep examination needed.

Skynut

Ahhh the sweet sound of cowbell.

jderdock

jdhdiggs wrote:

Neo-con?

No, its just slang like calling you the name demi did and you objected.

Fair enough...though I didn't call anyone here a neo-conservative. I was simply referring to a movement which aaharvel so eloquently stated:

aaharvel wrote:

Neo-con. Meaning new conservative. Yes, it started around the Reagan era.

It used to mean a liberal who expressed conservative views, such as Zell Miller. But it's evolved into someone who leans towards social authoritianism in the name of morals and religion, white protestant. No, it's not facism. Far from it, but the roots of both are very similar. One needs to look no further than Terri Schiavo. Small government?

jdhdiggs wrote:

Sigh, I'll ask again, where have you shown a conservative (or "right" leaning viewpoint?)

Party platforms? Not buying it. Either you believe the rights of one person supercedes another or it doesn't. One's a conservative viewpoint, the other liberal. It's really simple, no deep examination needed.

It seems as if we're dealing with different definitions of "Right", which is understandable these days. If you're genuinely interested in my political views, I'd be happy to PM back and forth with you. I do tend to be a little left leaning on environmental issues, but only as and end to an eventual Libertarian means.