Kintenbo Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Why are you guys arguing over presidents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
California Mountain Snake Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 but if you're gonna complain about one, or try to say that one is a "Messaiah" I did neither SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kintenbo Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 :B There is waaaaaaaay too much serious in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canas is back Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 And I'm pretty fucking sure I know what a neoconservative is, seeing as how I'm fairly well enmeshed with politics--on a personal level, not a hurf-durf theory level. Those who know me know exactly what I mean, and you don't matter enough to fall into that group. (I'm also almost certainly far more well-read in the area of politics than you are and am capable of considerably more accurate analyses than you are. Not that that's hard.)Neoconservatives do not believe that. In fact, most beat the "small government" drum quite hard. I'll stop calling you a worthless slack-boweled neoconservative when you stop being a worthless slack-boweled neoconservative. excepting neoconservatives actually want government intervention when it comes to social issues, Aker is libertarian (I know he is) he believes the government should stay out of every aspect of life AKA libertarian, now neoconservativism has similar ideas when it comes to fiscal policy but they are far apart when it comes to social policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Tyler Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Well, this song basically fits this topic: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Kommissar Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Actually I can. The Kennedy's made their fortune by being drug runners during the prohibition. But you never hear about that. Because JFK decided to control the media. That's how he won the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
California Mountain Snake Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Yeah, that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altera the Hun Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Popularity always comes, in part, from a politician's ability to speak well, to sound intelligent and trustworthy, and to give the impression of being the right guy or gal for the job. Popularity can be damaged or boosted by actual competence, but the importance of being able to convince others that you're intelligent, trustworthy, and a good guy never diminishes. An example of "hollow popularity" would be JFK, who got very little done, but was loved to a ridiculous degree by the American people. Bush had one of the lowest approval ratings when he left office, and he was still relatively effective at getting things done despite that.Incorrect. Popularity with the voters is important because it allows the executive to demonize uncooperative politicians within the party and without. Bush benefitted from massive popularity early on (at one point, the highest popularity rating ever recorded, ~90%), as well as a Republican-controlled legislature: this was when he did most of what he (very poorly) did. Nixon was, while not widely-loved a loved man, a very, very intelligent politician, and managed to get his was that way.Both were still able to get things done even at there low points, though. Bush had more trouble because of the heavily Democratic controlled Congress in his last 2 years, but he was still able to find ways around them.Did you even read my post? I stated that LBJ's effectiveness embodied a strategy that didn't require popularity. Everything I heard of him doing came unraveled because of his lack of popularity, though, Strategy or not. Specifically Vietnam, but other things as well. That doesn't make the initial decision easy, particularly when Obama faced huge election risk if he was perceived as "too weak on terror." No, it was plain as day that he'd do it if he was elected. Think about it: If America still voted for him despite such complaints, that would effectively tell him that America doesn't care about how hard he is on Terrorism over their desire to see Guantanamo shut down. Oh, and Guantanamo's closing is purely symbolic. Unless Obama's mre of a fool than I give him credit for, he'll just move all the prisoners in Guantanamo to another base in Afghanistan or Iraq, or another off-shore base. Because you're being intellectually dishonest in your characterization of it? What a shocker. Except there was nothing intellectually dishonest about my characterization of it. And I'm pretty fucking sure I know what a neoconservative is, seeing as how I'm fairly well enmeshed with politics--on a personal level, not a hurf-durf theory level. Those who know me know exactly what I mean, and you don't matter enough to fall into that group. (I'm also almost certainly far more well-read in the area of politics than you are and am capable of considerably more accurate analyses than you are. Not that that's hard.)Neoconservatives do not believe that. In fact, most beat the "small government" drum quite hard. I'll stop calling you a worthless slack-boweled neoconservative when you stop being a worthless slack-boweled neoconservative. You, sir, are an idiot. I don't give a damn about the global assertation of national values, which is something that's a main conscern for a NeoCon, which means I'm not one. Now go study your political beliefs and come back then. Oh, yeah, By the way, I aced the AP Government test back when I took it my junior year of High School, and I just finished my American History class last semester here at college. He doesn't have to feign.Oh? Who's the 17 year old college student? Yeah, go troll elsewhere.Yeah, because Nixon proved what a good a president he'd be when he actually got elected. If it wasn't for Nixon, we wouldn't have trade with China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
California Mountain Snake Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Oh? Who's the 17 year old college student? Yeah, go troll elsewhere. Illegitimum non carborundum; Domine salvum fac. Illegitimum non Carborundum; Domine salvum fac. Gaudeamus igitur! Veritas non sequitur? Illegitimum non carborundum -- ipso facto! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnell Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Assuming I'm the same kind of conservative being discussed here, neocons believe in small government in most areas and believe in as little government spending as possible (which is why some people despise Obama so much). They also dislike government programs quite a bit. Since I listen to a lot of talk radio, I'm pretty sure this is the conservative view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Actually I can. The Kennedy's made their fortune by being drug runners during the prohibition. But you never hear about that. Because JFK decided to control the media. That's how he won the election. ... Go on. Edited January 27, 2009 by Fox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacken Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) excepting neoconservatives actually want government intervention when it comes to social issues, Aker is libertarian (I know he is) he believes the government should stay out of every aspect of life AKA libertarian, now neoconservativism has similar ideas when it comes to fiscal policy but they are far apart when it comes to social policy.When you understand what "he's intellectually bankrupt and holding a distinctly different position" means, then you are welcome to continue this conversation. (Oh, and fun fact: neoconservatism has very, very little to do with social policy. That's a new, and stupid, invention that was tacked onto it. There's a reason people who have a clue say "neoconservatives and the Religious Right." Proof that you fecalspewers really don't know what you're talking about.)The other mouthbreather thinks being a seventeen-year-old college student is impressive? That's...kind of amusing, seeing as how I started college at seventeen, too...difference is that I actually know the difference between my ass and my elbow. Cretins. (Oh. And calling yourself a libertarian is amusing as hell. Libertarianism is fundamentally broken by any rational measure. Enjoy the drooling.) Edited January 27, 2009 by Blacken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyvernSageLord Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) Well, this song basically fits this topic: And I got one hell of a kick out of it as I read the thread while listening to it. Edited January 28, 2009 by WyvernSageLord Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.