(02-27-2015 11:03 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 10:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 10:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 02:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, but that brings you around to the whole no true scotsman thing.

Nope.

...seems like a weird objection, how do you figure?

Nope, not even remotely close. Either you know nothing about neocons or you know nothing about TEA Partiers. There is almost no issue on which neocons and TEA Partiers would agree, from gay rights to the size of government.

Just to be clear, in case there's any doubt, the Tea Party is only concerned with shrinking a bloated federal government.

I should know. I'm one of them.

Exactly.

(02-27-2015 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:03 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 10:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 10:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nope.

...seems like a weird objection, how do you figure?

Nope, not even remotely close. Either you know nothing about neocons or you know nothing about TEA Partiers. There is almost no issue on which neocons and TEA Partiers would agree, from gay rights to the size of government.

Just to be clear, in case there's any doubt, the Tea Party is only concerned with shrinking a bloated federal government.

I should know. I'm one of them.

Exactly.

I feel like neither of you understood the context of that statement in the least. In no way was I stating that the libertarian-based beliefs commonly attributed to those in the Tea Party are the same as Neo Conservative beliefs, I was stating that I have run into way too many Tea Partiers who don't seem to understand that themselves. Which brings up the no true scotsman argument where you and I try to decide which people claiming to be Tea Partiers are actually that, which is silly and will go nowhere.

It's what happened when the Republicans co-opted the movement from whatever grass-roots it had.

(02-27-2015 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:03 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 10:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 10:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nope.

...seems like a weird objection, how do you figure?

Nope, not even remotely close. Either you know nothing about neocons or you know nothing about TEA Partiers. There is almost no issue on which neocons and TEA Partiers would agree, from gay rights to the size of government.

Just to be clear, in case there's any doubt, the Tea Party is only concerned with shrinking a bloated federal government.

I should know. I'm one of them.

Exactly.

There are some dumbschits that have melded themselves into this movement...but..the VAST majority just want us to follow our own rules of governance.

(02-27-2015 11:48 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:03 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 10:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  ...seems like a weird objection, how do you figure?

Nope, not even remotely close. Either you know nothing about neocons or you know nothing about TEA Partiers. There is almost no issue on which neocons and TEA Partiers would agree, from gay rights to the size of government.

Just to be clear, in case there's any doubt, the Tea Party is only concerned with shrinking a bloated federal government.

I should know. I'm one of them.

Exactly.

There are some dumbschits that have melded themselves into this movement...but..the VAST majority just want us to follow our own rules of governance.

Fox news becoming your biggest supporter made it a matter of time before it got co-opted by the party as a whole. It's the problem with our system, third parties eventually end up getting marginalized and taken over by the big two.

(02-27-2015 11:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:48 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:03 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nope, not even remotely close. Either you know nothing about neocons or you know nothing about TEA Partiers. There is almost no issue on which neocons and TEA Partiers would agree, from gay rights to the size of government.

Just to be clear, in case there's any doubt, the Tea Party is only concerned with shrinking a bloated federal government.

I should know. I'm one of them.

Exactly.

There are some dumbschits that have melded themselves into this movement...but..the VAST majority just want us to follow our own rules of governance.

Fox news becoming your biggest supporter made it a matter of time before it got co-opted by the party as a whole. It's the problem with our system, third parties eventually end up getting marginalized and taken over by the big two.

My comments should in no way be construed as indicative of my philosophy.

(02-27-2015 11:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I feel like neither of you understood the context of that statement in the least. In no way was I stating that the libertarian-based beliefs commonly attributed to those in the Tea Party are the same as Neo Conservative beliefs, I was stating that I have run into way too many Tea Partiers who don't seem to understand that themselves. Which brings up the no true scotsman argument where you and I try to decide which people claiming to be Tea Partiers are actually that, which is silly and will go nowhere.
It's what happened when the Republicans co-opted the movement from whatever grass-roots it had.

No, we understand perfectly.

But there is a significant distinction being made that you are not seeming to grasp. There is an objective bright line for distinguishing between TEA Partiers and pretenders, particularly neocons, which doesn't exist in the no true scotsman situation. And anyone expressing neoconservative beliefs falls on the pretender side of that line. The error is yours, in including as Tea Partiers those who are clearly not.

I like my brother's definition of a neocon, "Someone who's conservative on every issue where I'm liberal and liberal on every issue where I'm conservative."

(02-28-2015 12:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I feel like neither of you understood the context of that statement in the least. In no way was I stating that the libertarian-based beliefs commonly attributed to those in the Tea Party are the same as Neo Conservative beliefs, I was stating that I have run into way too many Tea Partiers who don't seem to understand that themselves. Which brings up the no true scotsman argument where you and I try to decide which people claiming to be Tea Partiers are actually that, which is silly and will go nowhere.
It's what happened when the Republicans co-opted the movement from whatever grass-roots it had.

No, we understand perfectly.

But there is a significant distinction being made that you are not seeming to grasp. There is an objective bright line for distinguishing between TEA Partiers and pretenders, particularly neocons, which doesn't exist in the no true scotsman situation. And anyone expressing neoconservative beliefs falls on the pretender side of that line. The error is yours, in including as Tea Partiers those who are clearly not.

I like my brother's definition of a neocon, "Someone who's conservative on every issue where I'm liberal and liberal on every issue where I'm conservative."

Yes...NeoCons are not Tea Partiers. While they may hold some some of the same stances?....There are major issues that separate them and make them almost enemies.

(02-28-2015 12:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I feel like neither of you understood the context of that statement in the least. In no way was I stating that the libertarian-based beliefs commonly attributed to those in the Tea Party are the same as Neo Conservative beliefs, I was stating that I have run into way too many Tea Partiers who don't seem to understand that themselves. Which brings up the no true scotsman argument where you and I try to decide which people claiming to be Tea Partiers are actually that, which is silly and will go nowhere.
It's what happened when the Republicans co-opted the movement from whatever grass-roots it had.

No, we understand perfectly.

But there is a significant distinction being made that you are not seeming to grasp. There is an objective bright line for distinguishing between TEA Partiers and pretenders, particularly neocons, which doesn't exist in the no true scotsman situation. And anyone expressing neoconservative beliefs falls on the pretender side of that line. The error is yours, in including as Tea Partiers those who are clearly not.

I like my brother's definition of a neocon, "Someone who's conservative on every issue where I'm liberal and liberal on every issue where I'm conservative."

Jesus, I've stated that exact distinction multiple times on this thread, but you're simply not understanding the conceptual problem I'm discussing because you're stuck in a knee-jerk reaction to an attack that I never made.

(02-28-2015 12:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 12:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I feel like neither of you understood the context of that statement in the least. In no way was I stating that the libertarian-based beliefs commonly attributed to those in the Tea Party are the same as Neo Conservative beliefs, I was stating that I have run into way too many Tea Partiers who don't seem to understand that themselves. Which brings up the no true scotsman argument where you and I try to decide which people claiming to be Tea Partiers are actually that, which is silly and will go nowhere.
It's what happened when the Republicans co-opted the movement from whatever grass-roots it had.

No, we understand perfectly.
But there is a significant distinction being made that you are not seeming to grasp. There is an objective bright line for distinguishing between TEA Partiers and pretenders, particularly neocons, which doesn't exist in the no true scotsman situation. And anyone expressing neoconservative beliefs falls on the pretender side of that line. The error is yours, in including as Tea Partiers those who are clearly not.
I like my brother's definition of a neocon, "Someone who's conservative on every issue where I'm liberal and liberal on every issue where I'm conservative."

Jesus, I've stated that exact distinction multiple times on this thread, but you're simply not understanding the conceptual problem I'm discussing because you're stuck in a knee-jerk reaction to an attack that I never made.

Yes, I know you have. But you have also persisted in calling neocons "Tea Partiers." It's like you don't comprehend the point you are making.

(02-27-2015 11:48 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:03 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 10:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  ...seems like a weird objection, how do you figure?

Nope, not even remotely close. Either you know nothing about neocons or you know nothing about TEA Partiers. There is almost no issue on which neocons and TEA Partiers would agree, from gay rights to the size of government.

Just to be clear, in case there's any doubt, the Tea Party is only concerned with shrinking a bloated federal government.

I should know. I'm one of them.

Exactly.

There are some dumbschits that have melded themselves into this movement...but..the VAST majority just want us to follow our own rules of governance.

extremists.....what can you do?????????

RX=titties and da ganja....call me in the morning if that doesn't cure the pain in the main vein............

I gotta get laid soon.....(knock, knock, knock)

disclaimer: sorry, but this is really funny in my sandbox (the one I am playing in now)

(02-26-2015 10:08 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 10:02 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I wish Oklalittledixie was here to comment on this thread.

I wish you weren't, of the liberal side, you add the least to discussions and would rather start a flame war than keep the cons civil.

cowards only understand 'the 180'

fit is like a puppy at times....gotta be patient.....he's still learning....and he ain't no coward.....gotta respect that (in my book)

dixie cup is a coward.....there's a reason he left.....

been wondering that myself...where did the lil' racist go?

(02-28-2015 01:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 12:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 12:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 11:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I feel like neither of you understood the context of that statement in the least. In no way was I stating that the libertarian-based beliefs commonly attributed to those in the Tea Party are the same as Neo Conservative beliefs, I was stating that I have run into way too many Tea Partiers who don't seem to understand that themselves. Which brings up the no true scotsman argument where you and I try to decide which people claiming to be Tea Partiers are actually that, which is silly and will go nowhere.
It's what happened when the Republicans co-opted the movement from whatever grass-roots it had.

No, we understand perfectly.
But there is a significant distinction being made that you are not seeming to grasp. There is an objective bright line for distinguishing between TEA Partiers and pretenders, particularly neocons, which doesn't exist in the no true scotsman situation. And anyone expressing neoconservative beliefs falls on the pretender side of that line. The error is yours, in including as Tea Partiers those who are clearly not.
I like my brother's definition of a neocon, "Someone who's conservative on every issue where I'm liberal and liberal on every issue where I'm conservative."

Jesus, I've stated that exact distinction multiple times on this thread, but you're simply not understanding the conceptual problem I'm discussing because you're stuck in a knee-jerk reaction to an attack that I never made.

Yes, I know you have. But you have also persisted in calling neocons "Tea Partiers." It's like you don't comprehend the point you are making.

Reread the thread, it's not a confusing statement taken in context. You just got your panties in a wad thinking I either made a mistake (didn't) or was besmirching the mediocre name of the Tea Party (wasn't). You can stop at this point because you're just talking in circles as it's clear you didn't read the thread.