(06-14-2014 08:34 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  You guys are a trip.
"I won't read it" now that just about sums up the problem with so many radical idealogues, scarred to death they might have to learn something that doesn't fit the agenda. Unwilling to read anything that might make them uncomfortable.

No thanks, I'm an obamaphobe.

(06-16-2014 03:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

love it.

(06-16-2014 06:46 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 12:26 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 02:54 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 12:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Facism isn't a political ideology but rather a way of governing.

Both far left and far right regimes have had characteristics that most would consider Facism.

"fascism originated in Italy during World War I, combining more typically right-wing positions with elements of left-wing politics, "

So left wing politics realize they need a well armed military to impose their left wing politics on it's people.

What part of " right wing positions" do you not understand?

Did you miss well armed military?

What part of " right wing positions" do you not understand?

What part of the English language do you not understand?

(06-17-2014 08:49 AM)Paul M Wrote:  What part of the English language do you not understand?

If you think a well armed military is a liberal ideal then I have some beach front property to sell you in Colorado.

(06-17-2014 02:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:49 AM)Paul M Wrote:  What part of the English language do you not understand?

If you think a well armed military is a liberal ideal then I have some beach front property to sell you in Colorado.

Name a socialist/communist government that didn't have, or at the very least try desperately to have, a well armed and powerful military.

(06-17-2014 02:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 02:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:49 AM)Paul M Wrote:  What part of the English language do you not understand?

If you think a well armed military is a liberal ideal then I have some beach front property to sell you in Colorado.

Name a socialist/communist government that didn't have, or at the very least try desperately to have, a well armed and powerful military.

What's your point? so do we, and we have had for decades and decades. It's not a lib/con thing, it's an american exceptionalist thing.

(06-17-2014 02:37 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 02:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 02:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:49 AM)Paul M Wrote:  What part of the English language do you not understand?

If you think a well armed military is a liberal ideal then I have some beach front property to sell you in Colorado.

Name a socialist/communist government that didn't have, or at the very least try desperately to have, a well armed and powerful military.

What's your point? so do we, and we have had for decades and decades. It's not a lib/con thing, it's an american exceptionalist thing.

I was responding to an assertion that the left doesn't want a well armed military. Far left obviously does, just like far right. The claim was that it is a con thing but not a lib thing. It's offered in specific response to that erroneous claim. In either case, it is necessary to impose their will on the public. Your points are irrelevant in that context. In fact, you appear to be agreeing with me.

It certainly isn't a liberal ideal in this country as much as it is a conservative one.

(06-17-2014 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 02:37 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 02:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 02:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:49 AM)Paul M Wrote:  What part of the English language do you not understand?

If you think a well armed military is a liberal ideal then I have some beach front property to sell you in Colorado.

Name a socialist/communist government that didn't have, or at the very least try desperately to have, a well armed and powerful military.

What's your point? so do we, and we have had for decades and decades. It's not a lib/con thing, it's an american exceptionalist thing.

I was responding to an assertion that the left doesn't want a well armed military. Far left obviously does, just like far right. The claim was that it is a con thing but not a lib thing. It's offered in specific response to that erroneous claim. In either case, it is necessary to impose their will on the public. Your points are irrelevant in that context. In fact, you appear to be agreeing with me.

I'm trying to keep up with to many threads I think.

(06-17-2014 03:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It certainly isn't a liberal ideal in this country as much as it is a conservative one.

Historically incorrect. On the left you had FDR, JFK, LBJ among others, while on the right you had Ike warning of the "military industrial complex" and Wendell Wilkie being ambivalent at best toward WWII. Democrats got us into WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

Militarism is really not a core conservative value. It's really not consistent with small government and maximum liberty. It has been adopted by the republicans since the neocons moved over from democrat to republican in the 1960s.

My own belief is never fight a war you don't intend to win. Maintain the absolute strongest military in the world, and never use it, because nobody wants to pick on you. That requires a lot of restraint. That restraint is probably helped if you keep a lot of that military in a reduced state of ongoing readiness, so it's not sitting there ready to be deployed on a hair-trigger basis.

(06-17-2014 03:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 03:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It certainly isn't a liberal ideal in this country as much as it is a conservative one.

Historically incorrect. On the left you had FDR, JFK, LBJ among others, while on the right you had Ike warning of the "military industrial complex" and Wendell Wilkie being ambivalent at best toward WWII. Democrats got us into WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

Militarism is really not a core conservative value. It's really not consistent with small government and maximum liberty. It has been adopted by the republicans since the neocons moved over from democrat to republican in the 1960s.

My own belief is never fight a war you don't intend to win. Maintain the absolute strongest military in the world, and never use it, because nobody wants to pick on you. That requires a lot of restraint. That restraint is probably helped if you keep a lot of that military in a reduced state of ongoing readiness, so it's not sitting there ready to be deployed on a hair-trigger basis.

Let me re-phrase - ever since I've been old enough to care, it's been the Republicans harping on how Democrats want to cut military spending and make the military weak. So, more recent history.

I think Owl nailed it. The neocons were originally dems, back in the 30's I believe when they formed in response to Hitler. The organizers were (and still are, by and large, Jewish). There principle motivation is to push the U. S. into fighting along side Israel, and actually fighting what they perceive to be enemies of the Zionist state. They have migrated to the repub party,I believe, because they felt between big business and a more pronounced sense of american exceptionalism on the part of repubs, they could influence american foreign policy more readily. Bush listened to Chaney (Halliburton), who is a notorious supporter of neocons.

(06-17-2014 04:21 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I think Owl nailed it. The neocons were originally dems, back in the 30's I believe when they formed in response to Hitler. The organizers were (and still are, by and large, Jewish). There principle motivation is to push the U. S. into fighting along side Israel, and actually fighting what they perceive to be enemies of the Zionist state. They have migrated to the repub party,I believe, because they felt between big business and a more pronounced sense of american exceptionalism on the part of repubs, they could influence american foreign policy more readily. Bush listened to Chaney (Halliburton), who is a notorious supporter of neocons.

There were really three things in the 1960s and 1970s that motivated the shift from D to R:

1. Opposition to the Vietnam War from the left.
2. The perceived drop in moral standards from things like the drug culture, Roe v. Wade, and popular music.
3. The perceived radicalism of Black Power leaders and "burn, baby, burn" riots in Detroit and elsewhere.