Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
not every member of PNAC is a neocon, moronJust look at this list of neocons from the statement of principles for PNAC. Filled with Reagan,and Bush administration officials, damn these guys are bleeding liberals.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
Statement of Principles
* * * *
Ah, a challenge from a pea brain
you deserve every one you get, assholeGee...I wish I were smart enough to comprehend WHY the neocons are in the GOP and NOT the Democratic Party if they're closer to liberals than conservatives...
I guess it takes a "SPECIAL" kind of intelligence...
Neo-cons..."New Conservatives" are closer to Liberals than conservatives. That statement is so stupid it defies any adjative to explain it.
Dive **** you are an idiot. Watch your pointless neg reps.
Jonah Goldberg is one of the ones who speaks sensibly by noting (as I have) that the term "neoconservative" has so many different (and often somewhat contradictory) meanings, that it effectively has lost the utility of having ANY actual meaning at all.
Kill this word: poor, abused, unrecognizable, meaningless 'neocon' | National Review | Find Articles at BNET
Self-satisfied, smug, smarmy simps like bfgrn would have us believe otherwise. Why? Because they believe otherwise. Pinheads.
damn, still showing what a fucking moron you areyou deserve every one you get, assholeNeo-cons..."New Conservatives" are closer to Liberals than conservatives. That statement is so stupid it defies any adjative to explain it.
Dive **** you are an idiot. Watch your pointless neg reps.
I've never given a neg rep. I wouldn't know how I could support the first amendment and act like you. It must be a very special feeling. You must be real proud to be you.
There is really no need to label you with a name ..you know what you are.
he's the real peabrain* * * *
Ah, a challenge from a pea brain
Which would constitute an insurmountable challenge to the massive defective ego that is all things you.
No sir. You do not in fact know what a neocon is.
You are such a limited little pinhead of a tool that you apparently believe that the word has only one meaning.
Jonah Goldberg is one of the ones who speaks sensibly by noting (as I have) that the term "neoconservative" has so many different (and often somewhat contradictory) meanings, that it effectively has lost the utility of having ANY actual meaning at all.
Kill this word: poor, abused, unrecognizable, meaningless 'neocon' | National Review | Find Articles at BNET
Self-satisfied, smug, smarmy simps like bfgrn would have us believe otherwise. Why? Because they believe otherwise. Pinheads.
Jonah Goldberg is one of the ones who speaks sensibly by noting (as I have) that the term "neoconservative" has so many different (and often somewhat contradictory) meanings, that it effectively has lost the utility of having ANY actual meaning at all.
Kill this word: poor, abused, unrecognizable, meaningless 'neocon' | National Review | Find Articles at BNET
Self-satisfied, smug, smarmy simps like bfgrn would have us believe otherwise. Why? Because they believe otherwise. Pinheads.
Jonah Goldberg? The man who butchered the meaning of "fascism" in an ignorant attempt to caste liberalism alongside Mussolini and Hitler? I would never take anything he says seriously or call it sensible. He's just another ideologue.
Jonah Goldberg is one of the ones who speaks sensibly by noting (as I have) that the term "neoconservative" has so many different (and often somewhat contradictory) meanings, that it effectively has lost the utility of having ANY actual meaning at all.
Kill this word: poor, abused, unrecognizable, meaningless 'neocon' | National Review | Find Articles at BNET
Self-satisfied, smug, smarmy simps like bfgrn would have us believe otherwise. Why? Because they believe otherwise. Pinheads.
Jonah Goldberg? The man who butchered the meaning of "fascism" in an ignorant attempt to caste liberalism alongside Mussolini and Hitler? I would never take anything he says seriously or call it sensible. He's just another ideologue.
Jonah Goldberg is one of the ones who speaks sensibly by noting (as I have) that the term "neoconservative" has so many different (and often somewhat contradictory) meanings, that it effectively has lost the utility of having ANY actual meaning at all.
Kill this word: poor, abused, unrecognizable, meaningless 'neocon' | National Review | Find Articles at BNET
Self-satisfied, smug, smarmy simps like bfgrn would have us believe otherwise. Why? Because they believe otherwise. Pinheads.
Jonah Goldberg? The man who butchered the meaning of "fascism" in an ignorant attempt to caste liberalism alongside Mussolini and Hitler? I would never take anything he says seriously or call it sensible. He's just another ideologue.
He was absolutely right about the term "fascism" too.
Jonah Goldberg? The man who butchered the meaning of "fascism" in an ignorant attempt to caste liberalism alongside Mussolini and Hitler? I would never take anything he says seriously or call it sensible. He's just another ideologue.
He was absolutely right about the term "fascism" too.
Not by a long shot - he showed little respect for history and a lot of literary license.
He was absolutely right about the term "fascism" too.
Not by a long shot - he showed little respect for history and a lot of literary license.
Not by a long shot. He was precise and quite accurate in correcting the license that had been taken with our language for far too long.
That is far more respectful of history than the guys who mucked it up in the first place.
Not by a long shot - he showed little respect for history and a lot of literary license.
Not by a long shot. He was precise and quite accurate in correcting the license that had been taken with our language for far too long.
That is far more respectful of history than the guys who mucked it up in the first place.
You should read the review - it pretty much says it all and it's not a liberal's review either.
Not by a long shot. He was precise and quite accurate in correcting the license that had been taken with our language for far too long.
That is far more respectful of history than the guys who mucked it up in the first place.
You should read the review - it pretty much says it all and it's not a liberal's review either.
I did better. I read the book. The numeous criticisms I have read of the book are generally just false. They claim Mr. Goldberg meant something in what he wrote at odds with what he obviously did mean and often at odds with what he said.
Sorry, but that's just a lot of crap. Fascism DOES have a variety of identifiers associated with it and those identifiers are more consonant with modern American "liberalism" than almost anything else.
Liberals are guilty of having butchered the meaning of "fascism" just like so many of them today deliberately butcher the term "neocon." Reviews of Goldberg's book by liberals are thus, generally, of no value.
Edited to add: That ^ last sentence is a bit unclear. My bad. I will attempt to clarify it a little: Austin W. Bramwell may not be a "liberal." But he often sounds more like a liberal in his criticism of conservatives and conservatism than he sounds like a conservative. I am not sure why William F. Buckely asked him to step down from the NR, but I do wonder if there was a suspicion that Bramwell was something other than he pretends to be.
You should read the review - it pretty much says it all and it's not a liberal's review either.
I did better. I read the book. The numeous criticisms I have read of the book are generally just false. They claim Mr. Goldberg meant something in what he wrote at odds with what he obviously did mean and often at odds with what he said.
Sorry, but that's just a lot of crap. Fascism DOES have a variety of identifiers associated with it and those identifiers are more consonant with modern American "liberalism" than almost anything else.
Liberals are guilty of having butchered the meaning of "fascism" just like so many of them today deliberately butcher the term "neocon." Reviews of Goldberg's book by liberals are thus, generally, of no value.
Edited to add: That ^ last sentence is a bit unclear. My bad. I will attempt to clarify it a little: Austin W. Bramwell may not be a "liberal." But he often sounds more like a liberal in his criticism of conservatives and conservatism than he sounds like a conservative. I am not sure why William F. Buckely asked him to step down from the NR, but I do wonder if there was a suspicion that Bramwell was something other than he pretends to be.
It's a good thing Hitler didn't have the opportunity to read Goldberg's book; he would never have arrested, imprisoned and executed so many liberals! Who knows, we might be speaking German right now!
When the Nazis came for * * * * {yada yada recitation of completely irrelevant poem snipped}.
"First they came…" is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
Not by a long shot. He was precise and quite accurate in correcting the license that had been taken with our language for far too long.
That is far more respectful of history than the guys who mucked it up in the first place.
You should read the review - it pretty much says it all and it's not a liberal's review either.
I did better. I read the book. The numeous criticisms I have read of the book are generally just false. They claim Mr. Goldberg meant something in what he wrote at odds with what he obviously did mean and often at odds with what he said.
Sorry, but that's just a lot of crap. Fascism DOES have a variety of identifiers associated with it and those identifiers are more consonant with modern American "liberalism" than almost anything else.
Liberals are guilty of having butchered the meaning of "fascism" just like so many of them today deliberately butcher the term "neocon." Reviews of Goldberg's book by liberals are thus, generally, of no value.
Edited to add: That ^ last sentence is a bit unclear. My bad. I will attempt to clarify it a little: Austin W. Bramwell may not be a "liberal." But he often sounds more like a liberal in his criticism of conservatives and conservatism than he sounds like a conservative. I am not sure why William F. Buckely asked him to step down from the NR, but I do wonder if there was a suspicion that Bramwell was something other than he pretends to be.
You should read the review - it pretty much says it all and it's not a liberal's review either.
I did better. I read the book. The numeous criticisms I have read of the book are generally just false. They claim Mr. Goldberg meant something in what he wrote at odds with what he obviously did mean and often at odds with what he said.
Sorry, but that's just a lot of crap. Fascism DOES have a variety of identifiers associated with it and those identifiers are more consonant with modern American "liberalism" than almost anything else.
Liberals are guilty of having butchered the meaning of "fascism" just like so many of them today deliberately butcher the term "neocon." Reviews of Goldberg's book by liberals are thus, generally, of no value.
Edited to add: That ^ last sentence is a bit unclear. My bad. I will attempt to clarify it a little: Austin W. Bramwell may not be a "liberal." But he often sounds more like a liberal in his criticism of conservatives and conservatism than he sounds like a conservative. I am not sure why William F. Buckely asked him to step down from the NR, but I do wonder if there was a suspicion that Bramwell was something other than he pretends to be.
That is why I chose a conservative review from a respected source. Goldberg's analysis and writing and sense of accuracy is more akin to something produced by Michael Moore. Demonizing through ignorance. And I don't agree with the liberals tossing about of the term "fascism" either. Both sides are quick to throw comparisons of fascism and nazism at each other and it only shows a profound ignorance of historical reality.
Goldberg's biggest dishonesty is that he limits his critique to only one ideology and is blind to his own side's failings. And yes, I have the book too - waste of good money.
If you look at fascism's identifyers - from fascism in theory - early Mussolini - to fascism in practice - Mussolini in power - you will see many points in common with rightwing ideology. The end result though is it has aspects of both in it and it defies the simplistic left-right axis that those like Goldberg use.
I think Bramwell comes off "sounding like a liberal" because he is willing to criticize contemporary conservatism (maybe as is represented by "neo-cons"?) which has drifted pretty far from it's traditional roots in much the same way liberalism has.
* * * * {blathering stupid preliminary drivel offered by ADoucheySailor snipped}
Provide evidence that nazis were liberal.
