What is the Deal with Ron Paul?

[Ari Chi3fs]

This dude is popping up everywhere. Top of the polls that I have seen.

Whats his story? Is he vote worthy?

[irishjayhawk]

Is that a serious question?

[irishjayhawk]

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=168038&highlight=ron%2Apaul

[Adam]

His campaign seemes to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why is he so popular?

[recxjake]

1% baby... get excited.

[Jenson71]

Is he vote worthy?

No, he doesn't have the money for a vote.

[BucEyedPea]

Is he vote worthy?
Yes

What's the deal?

He is the real deal.
The only true American.
The only true patriot.

[go bowe]

well shit...

the ONLY true whatever, you say?

he must be very lonely without any true patriots or true americans to play with...

it's so sad...

[Adam]

The only true American.
The only true patriot.

No, he's just the only one of them (in Washington) who doesn't have his head up his ass.

[SNR]

No, he doesn't have the money for a vote.Tell that to John McCain

[SNR]

Oh and Ron Paul? Don't know who that is. I should probably just vote for Rudy or Romney instead... they're so much more "mainstream."

[ClevelandBronco]

What's the deal?

Replacement of the New Deal with the old ideal.

[Taco John]

Whats his story? Is he vote worthy?

That's up for you to decide:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IWfIhFhelm8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

As for me, no one else has a shot at my vote.

[Taco John]

Here's what CNN thinks:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6g7xFRjY22s" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

[patteeu]

He's a small government conservative when it comes to domestic policy and a neo-isolationist when it comes to foreign policy.

[Cochise]

He's a small government conservative when it comes to domestic policy and a neo-isolationist when it comes to foreign policy.

You're gonna get it now... when you put the neo- prefix on something it means PURE EVIL!!

[Ari Chi3fs]

I read some stuff by him a few years ago, and he seems fairly brilliant and non-mainstream.

It would be refreshing to have someone in office who can think for themselves. Could get interesting.

Good luck, RON.

[Radar Chief]

Why is he so popular?

He said some mean things about “teh Debil” and Iraq so he’s the media darling and will get all kinds of free publicity out of it. :shrug:

[Radar Chief]

You're gonna get it now... when you put the neo- prefix on something it means PURE EVIL!!


"Neo's" make the baby Jesus cry. ;)

[irishjayhawk]

Question for those Ron Paul fans that I haven't seen asked before:

Is Ron Paul deeply religious? I had heard from a couple people who say he's a nut sometimes for religious causes? True?

[stevieray]

Question for those Ron Paul fans that I haven't seen asked before:

Is Ron Paul deeply religious? I had heard from a couple people who say he's a nut sometimes for religious causes? True?

Read Tacos' Baptist thread.

[BucEyedPea]

He's a small government conservative when it comes to domestic policy and a neo-isolationist when it comes to foreign policy.
Don't heed this post. Paul is not an isolationist. Since America's never been isolationist ( military non-interventionist or reluctant to use our military for non defense ) country there's no need to out "neo" in front of it. Paul supports commercial, diplomatic and cultural relations with other nations. And he is for a strong defense.

OTOH, it's better to be a neo-isolationist than a neo-fascist or neo-Nazi.

[BucEyedPea]

Question for those Ron Paul fans that I haven't seen asked before:

Is Ron Paul deeply religious? I had heard from a couple people who say he's a nut sometimes for religious causes? True?
This is one thing I don't know about him. I do know he's a Christian.
He is not against religion though either. He definitely is not like those RR who want Armageddon in the ME to save Israel in order to convert Jews. He's the opposite.

I'd say he's more like Reagan in this dept. He's a paleo-libertarian Constitutionalist so many controversial social issues he'd feel are the a Federal govt issue to handle.

[BucEyedPea]

Here's some neo-terminology that apply to Paul:

Neo-American
Neo-Freedom
Neo-Jeffersonian
Neo-Lockian
Neo-Limited Govt
Neo-Constitutionalist
Neo-Founding Father
Neo-Republican


Hey! This is fun I could do this ALL day!!! :p

[patteeu]

Don't heed this post. Paul is not an isolationist. Since America's never been isolationist ( military non-interventionist or reluctant to use our military for non defense ) country there's no need to out "neo" in front of it. Paul supports commercial, diplomatic and cultural relations with other nations. And he is for a strong defense.

Don't heed this post and it's red herrings about commercial, diplomatic and cultural relations. Ron Paul's vision for America when it comes to foreign policy is a less powerful version of France. All talk, no walk.

OTOH, it's better to be a neo-isolationist than a neo-fascist or neo-Nazi.

True, but it's still not very good to be a neo-isolationist. It's a shame really, Ron Paul is awesome in most other ways.

[BucEyedPea]

Don't heed this post and it's red herrings about commercial, diplomatic and cultural relations. Ron Paul's vision for America when it comes to foreign policy is a less powerful version of France. All talk, no walk.

Not true. More like Switzerland who is armed to the teeth.

True, but it's still not very good to be a neo-isolationist. It's a shame really, Ron Paul is awesome in most other ways.
That's just it...this is not a FACT. And you know it. It's pure opinion because you don't like him on the war on terror so you color him a certain way.

[patteeu]

Not true. More like Switzerland who is armed to the teeth.

I'll split the difference with you and say he wants us to be Canada without the peacekeeping operations. I'm not budging on the "all talk, no walk" part though. :p

That's just it...this is not a FACT. And you know it. It's pure opinion because you don't like him on the war on terror so you color him a certain way.

Nah, it's definitely a fact. You might not like the label I use, but if he walks like a neo-isolationist and quacks like a neo-isolationist, he's definitely a neo-isolationist. Paul's preferred term, "noninterventionist" is just a case of putting lipstick on a neo-isolationist. It's still the same thing when the makeup comes off.

[BucEyedPea]

Nope. It's not a fact. It's propaganda by redefinition of words.


BTW has Canada or Switzerland been attacked by terrists?
No. I didn't think so.

I win this round.

[Ari Chi3fs]

ok, so does anyone besides Taco John and BucEyedPea like Ron Paul.

I like to make my presidential decisions based on the opinions of Chiefs fans, not Donko and Succaneer fans. :P

[BucEyedPea]

ok, so does anyone besides Taco John and BucEyedPea like Ron Paul.

I like to make my presidential decisions based on the opinions of Chiefs fans, not Donko and Succaneer fans. :P
Wow! Great way to make a decision! Just know that I'm also a Patriot's fan being from NE too. It's a winning combo....of recent SBs!


Anyhow....Adam, SNR, hstimaqe (sp?) are also fans. There may be more.

[patteeu]

ok, so does anyone besides Taco John and BucEyedPea like Ron Paul.

I like to make my presidential decisions based on the opinions of Chiefs fans, not Donko and Succaneer fans. :P

I love Ron Paul. He's been my favorite Congressman for a long time because of the way he votes "no" so often on spending bills. But the neo-isolation thing is a deal-breaker for me in a President so I can't vote for him.

If you don't mind a guy who thinks we should withdraw our military from around the world, stop defending our global interests and our strategic allies with our carrier task forces and forward bases, and stop backing up our diplomacy with the credible threat of force, I think Ron Paul could be right for you. On the plus side, from my pov, in addition to withdrawing from the areas where we do have vital national interest, he'd also stop getting the US involved in UN peacekeeping operations in places where we don't.

There are a bunch of other Chiefs fans who like him too. Some of them, like Adam off the top of my head, like the fact that he would not be a profligate spender as so many politicians are. Others are primarily attracted to him because he's vehemently against the Iraq war and would withdraw as soon as practical. He's the guy who blamed 9/11 on our historical involvement in the middle east (e.g. support for Israel, basing troops on muslim soil, etc.) in one of the early Republican debates. Every once in a while, BucEyedPea will let out a "Blowback" out of the blue. I think it's involuntary, but that's the type of idea she's referring to when it happens.

[BucEyedPea]

If you don't mind a guy who thinks we should withdraw our military from around the world, stop defending our global interests and our strategic allies with our carrier task forces and forward bases, and stop backing up our diplomacy with the credible threat of force, I think Ron Paul could be right for you. On the plus side, from my pov, in addition to withdrawing from the areas where we do have vital national interest, he'd also stop getting the US involved in UN peacekeeping operations in places where we don't.

Arrgggghh! This salty dog needs to make a scaliwag injun like you walk de' plant to soften you up for a severe reality adjustment. This is hyperbole to make a point, but t'is exaggerated.

What's wrong with getting rid of unecessary bases and keeping the one's we close at home open? We can start with Okinawa whose people hate us there. We NEVER had permanent bases in the ME before Bush I, and that brought terror home. Do we really need this when our ships in the PG have always been adequate in the past? It's not as in their face. That's what Paul is referrin' to. Details.

Every once in a while, BucEyedPea will let out a "Blowback" out of the blue. I think it's involuntary, but that's the type of idea she's referring to when it happens.

Burp!!

[shrek6849]

His supporters are often rabid and annoying, whether on the internets or in person. They try to shove it down your throat.

[patteeu]

We NEVER had permanent bases in the ME before Bush I, and that brought terror home.

Not true. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-7265(197203%2F04)8%3C15%3AUBIBGT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8) We announced the establishment of a permanent naval base in Bahrain in 1972. Before that, we'd been using the permanent British naval base there (established in 1935) for two decades. Slow fuse blowback!! ;)

[Cochise]

Not true. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-7265(197203%2F04)8%3C15%3AUBIBGT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8) We announced the establishment of a permanent naval base in Bahrain in 1972. Before that, we'd been using the permanent British naval base there (established in 1935) for two decades. Slow fuse blowback!! ;)

There has been at least one base in Turkey for like 50 years.

[BucEyedPea]

We've never had them on their Holy Lands ever before though such as Saudi Arabia. The people there, not just AQ, don't like it being a strict Wahhabi nation. Still, post PGWI saw an expansion in this...perceived as an encroachment and more western meddling...but they probably don't like the other ones either.

Even Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq Invasion and Occupation, said the same thing—that it had caused numerous problems...hence new ones in Iraq. It's still the wrong way to go...as it's an increase in one of the very things they've complained about.

Also, as I understand, Turkey also refused to let us use their country as a launching point into Iraq. Was wise imo.

Ya's still can't deny the date coincidence of terror coming home to American all through the 1990's regarding putting bases on their Holy Lands. Getting mired, deeper and deeper into the ME will involve us in more of their blood feuds just as Reagan said, when he wisely pulled out of Beirut and make us a target. It's just denial to think otherwise. This was also the downfall of the British Empire.

One need only take one look at Iraq to see it before your very eyes.

[Nightwish]

Don't heed this post and it's red herrings about commercial, diplomatic and cultural relations.How do you figure that those are red herrings, since those are exactly the sort of things isolationism is about? As you've been doing for some time now, you're confusing isolationism with military non-interventionism. I don't know where you're getting your bizarre ideas that if we aren't out there using our military to intervene or interfere with the affairs of half the planet, then we're being isolationist. I know how much you hate being caught in a mispeak, but frankly, BEP has owned you on the isolationism point.

[Taco John]

I love how Patty makes up a term like "neo-isolationist" and then uses it as if everybody agrees with him. I mean, we sat here and watched him make up the term over the summer, out of thin air. It's hilarious...

Whatever a new isolationist is, Ron Paul is not that. Ron Paul's position is that America is as isolated as it's ever been in it's history RIGHT NOW, and wants to change that so that we're more involved and more influential in the world.

People who are invested in our defeat in Iraq (the Bush Administration, patteau, etc.) want to continue to see us bogged down over there until someone waves a magical wand and Iraqis love eachother. They're going to continue to invest in American failure and attack anyone who would pull us out of there as an "isolationist." It's great irony seeing people who are causing America to be isolated in the world, calling those who want to turn America once again into an influential powerhouse "isolationists."

[Fishpicker]

ok, so does anyone besides Taco John and BucEyedPea like Ron Paul.

I like to make my presidential decisions based on the opinions of Chiefs fans, not Donko and Succaneer fans. :P

he is tied with Obama as the most popular candidate amongst Planeteers. here is the DC straw poll... http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=166185&highlight=primary

[SNR]

Here's what CNN thinks:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6g7xFRjY22s" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>Wow, they certainly picked a winner on the Democrat side. What a dumb****.

"Who's got the best shot at your party's nomination?"

"It doesn't matter. BUSH IS DA DEBBIL!!@!@"

With her looks, small brain, and big mouth, she's bound to go through five or six marriages in her lifetime, with some of them involving domestic violence. :shake:

[BucEyedPea]

I love how Patty makes up a term like "neo-isolationist" and then uses it as if everybody agrees with him. I mean, we sat here and watched him make up the term over the summer, out of thin air. It's hilarious...
That's right.

Whatever a new isolationist is, Ron Paul is not that. Ron Paul's position is that America is as isolated as it's ever been in it's history RIGHT NOW, and wants to change that so that we're more involved and more influential in the world.

Exactly. We've become more isolated than ever before with Pat's strategy.
Folks on Pat's side are the real isolationists. Guess it's projection.

[patteeu]

We've never had them on their Holy Lands ever before though such as Saudi Arabia. The people there, not just AQ, don't like it being a strict Wahhabi nation. Still, post PGWI saw an expansion in this...perceived as an encroachment and more western meddling...but they probably don't like the other ones either.

Even Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq Invasion and Occupation, said the same thing—that it had caused numerous problems...hence new ones in Iraq. It's still the wrong way to go...as it's an increase in one of the very things they've complained about.

Also, as I understand, Turkey also refused to let us use their country as a launching point into Iraq. Was wise imo.

Ya's still can't deny the date coincidence of terror coming home to American all through the 1990's regarding putting bases on their Holy Lands. Getting mired, deeper and deeper into the ME will involve us in more of their blood feuds just as Reagan said, when he wisely pulled out of Beirut and make us a target. It's just denial to think otherwise. This was also the downfall of the British Empire.

One need only take one look at Iraq to see it before your very eyes.

It's an excuse not a reason. And it's certainly not a justification. If we left Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait (and anything else we have left in Saudi Arabia) today, our long time bases in Bahrain and Turkey would be the next excuse, even though those bases never caused such a problem before. And your distinction between Bahrain beachfront property and supposed holy land in the middle of the Saudi desert is without merit. There was nothing holy about the locations of our Saudi bases. It's not like we were occupying Mecca or anything.

[BucEyedPea]

Come again?

[patteeu]

How do you figure that those are red herrings, since those are exactly the sort of things isolationism is about?

I'm not talking about old-school isolationism. I'm talking about neo-isolationism. I don't have time to catch you up. Maybe someone else can help you along today.

[BucEyedPea]

Whatever...it's your invention.

[Taco John]

Here, I'll catch him up... Neo-isolationist is a term patty just made up this summer to put down anyone who would pull out of the Iraq war.

[patteeu]

I love how Patty makes up a term like "neo-isolationist" and then uses it as if everybody agrees with him. I mean, we sat here and watched him make up the term over the summer, out of thin air. It's hilarious...

I guess I'm the Michael Harrington for a new generation. :shrug:

Whatever a new isolationist is, Ron Paul is not that. Ron Paul's position is that America is as isolated as it's ever been in it's history RIGHT NOW, and wants to change that so that we're more involved and more influential in the world.

People who are invested in our defeat in Iraq (the Bush Administration, patteau, etc.) want to continue to see us bogged down over there until someone waves a magical wand and Iraqis love eachother. They're going to continue to invest in American failure and attack anyone who would pull us out of there as an "isolationist." It's great irony seeing people who are causing America to be isolated in the world, calling those who want to turn America once again into an influential powerhouse "isolationists."

I love how Taco John tries to argue that up is down and down is up. Reminds me of the days when Nightwish was all about John Murtha's plan to win in Iraq by redeploying our forces to Okinawa where they would be prepared to re-engage at a moment's notice if necessary. Good times.

[Radar Chief]

I love how Patty makes up a term like "neo-isolationist" and then uses it as if everybody agrees with him. I mean, we sat here and watched him make up the term over the summer, out of thin air. It's hilarious...

Whatever a new isolationist is, Ron Paul is not that. Ron Paul's position is that America is as isolated as it's ever been in it's history RIGHT NOW, and wants to change that so that we're more involved and more influential in the world.

People who are invested in our defeat in Iraq (the Bush Administration, patteau, etc.) want to continue to see us bogged down over there until someone waves a magical wand and Iraqis love eachother. They're going to continue to invest in American failure and attack anyone who would pull us out of there as an "isolationist." It's great irony seeing people who are causing America to be isolated in the world, calling those who want to turn America once again into an influential powerhouse "isolationists."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944411,00.html

So “Patty” made up the term “neo-isolationism” just this last summer? All on his own?
Well, I suppose it’s a compliment to give him credit for creativity he doesn’t own.

[BucEyedPea]

So Radar is calling pat a plagiarist now?
At least Taco didn't do that.

[Nightwish]

Whats his story? Is he vote worthy?

That's up for you to decide:



As for me, no one else has a shot at my vote.
The more I hear this guy talk, the more I see the enthusiasm of his supporters - thinking people, not the typical sheep you see chanting mantras for Hillary, Newt, Rudy, and so on - the more I'm thinking this guy has the best chance of getting my vote.

[Radar Chief]

So Radar is calling pat a plagiarist now?
At least Taco didn't do that.

No, Teej just made up lies, or looked like an out of touch bafoon. Take your pick.

[BucEyedPea]

My pick is he went by what he saw here and may have not read time or knew about Nixon which could be the same for pat.

[Nightwish]

Reminds me of the days when I was obsessed with John Murtha's plan to redeploy our forces to Kuwait, Qatar, and even Okinawa, where they would be prepared to re-engage at a moment's notice if necessary, and Nightwish played happily along, knowing that Murtha was reliable as clockwork to get my panties in a wad. Good times.FYP

[Taco John]

I highly encourage anyone interested in learning more about Ron Paul to check out this page...

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/


There are tons of MP3 files of all of Paul's interview appearances on television, radio, etc. I've downloaded them all and I listen to them while I work. In fact, I have a home radio station (broadcasts about 200 feet), and I put them on a random loop so my neighbors can hear them too. :)

[Radar Chief]

My pick is he went by what he saw here and may have not read time or knew about Nixon which could be the same for pat.

Did you just post that he was talking out his azz? :hmmm: Ok, that too.

[BucEyedPea]

No I didn't. But being in a creative profession that type of thing happens and doesn't mean someone knew what another was creating.

[patteeu]

Come again?

Haha, it's telling that you see a muscular Uncle Sam as a bad thing. I guess the Uncle Sam of the neo-isolationists is some decrepit guy in a wheelchair with a big bullhorn. Diplomacy without the credible threat of force. All talk, no walk.

[Taco John]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944411,00.html

So “Patty” made up the term “neo-isolationism” just this last summer? All on his own?
Well, I suppose it’s a compliment to give him credit for creativity he doesn’t own.



Great article... We can be assured that patteau didn't pull the term from that article. It's an article about how there's actually no such thing as a "neo-isolationist."

Patteau is a smart enough guy. He's capable of slapping "neo" on "isolationist" without needing help from Time Magazine.

[Nightwish]

or looked like an out of touch bafoon.
Kind of like saying someone is "neo-isolationist," when they are only "non-interventionist?" Patteeu seems to want to take only half of the definition of "isolationist" and make it the whole definition. Since you seem to have issue with those criticizing pat, but don't seem to have issue with his use of the term, should we just assume that you are okay with that particular fiction?

[BucEyedPea]

True greatness comes from within by following principles which include justice, which includes selecting the guilty targets and proportional response when one uses force—not imperial ventures. Even NeoCon Krauthammer boasts that we are now an empire and after us it will someone else. (China?) I say this need not be, if we rely on principles but willing to use force intelligently not promiscuously on steroids. You color my ideas on fp as weak when I supported Afghanistan, ( as did Ron Paul) most of the Cold War ( at least retroactively), believe in a vigorous defense of the Monroe Doctrine and ignore the FACT that even an isolationist supports some interventions.

But keep spinning, like Shammity on Fox....don't get sick now from doing it too much. Your term is just a lie. Very neo-connish.

[Radar Chief]

Patteau is a smart enough guy. He's capable of slapping "neo" on "isolationist" without needing help from Time Magazine.

I’m sure he heard it somewhere. :shrug:

[Nightwish]

I’m sure he heard it somewhere. :shrug:
Well, if he heard it somewhere, and it is trying to apply it to Ron Paul's call for simple non-interventionism, then it is very clear that he didn't get a grasp on its meaning.

[Radar Chief]

Kind of like saying someone is "neo-isolationist," when they are only "non-interventionist?" Patteeu seems to want to take only half of the definition of "isolationist" and make it the whole definition. Since you seem to have issue with those criticizing pat, but don't seem to have issue with his use of the term, should we just assume that you are okay with that particular fiction?

Skipped over this part I take it.

Well, I suppose it’s a compliment to give him credit for creativity he doesn’t own.

And what does Patt schooling you guys have to do with Teej asserting that he made up a term that’s been in our collective vocabulary for at least a few decades? :spock: You really lost me with that particular leap.

[Radar Chief]

Well, if he heard it somewhere, and it is trying to apply it to Ron Paul's call for simple non-interventionism, then it is very clear that he didn't get a grasp on its meaning.

Ok, you guys can hash out it's meaning. Doesn’t change the idiocy behind claiming he made the term up though does it? :shrug:

[Taco John]

I’m sure he heard it somewhere. :shrug:


I personally doubt that. But it's possible. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me. It doesn't take a genius to affix "neo" to a word and turn it into a dirty word.

[Taco John]

Ok, you guys can hash out it's meaning. Doesn’t change the idiocy behind claiming he made the term up though does it? :shrug:



Oh, I see... You're not interested in actual discussion... You're just trying to "catch me!" Hahaha! Ooooh look at me! Running around! Weeeee! Radar is chasing me! Wooooo!


HAHAHA!


Ok, no more playing... The big people are trying to talk.

[BucEyedPea]

Oh, I see... You're not interested in actual discussion... You're just trying to "catch me!" Hahaha! Ooooh look at me! Running around! Weeeee! Radar is chasing me! Wooooo!


HAHAHA!


Ok, no more playing... The big people are trying to talk.

You noticed. I thought I was the only one.

[Radar Chief]

Oh, I see... You're not interested in actual discussion... You're just trying to "catch me!" Hahaha! Ooooh look at me! Running around! Weeeee! Radar is chasing me! Wooooo!


HAHAHA!


Ok, no more playing... The big people are trying to talk.

Wow. :eek: Thought you posted it “didn’t matter” to you? Awful lot of deflection for something that matters so little. :shrug:

[Taco John]

You noticed. I thought I was the only one.



What's even more funny is that he completely missed the point of the article that he posted, which is in effect that "neo-isolationist" is a made up term! ROFL

[patteeu]

What's even more funny is that he completely missed the point of the article that he posted, which is in effect that "neo-isolationist" is a made up term! ROFL

Aren't all terms made up at some point? Or are you some kind of language creationist that believes they were all handed to us in the Library of Eden? ;)

Come on, guys, can't we reach out to one another and get along? Whether I had the brilliantly creative idea to combine neo with isolationist myself or whether I adopted someone else's idea isn't really that important. What's important is that we all use it so that we don't have some kind of Tower of Babel thing going on in here.

[Taco John]

Aren't all terms made up at some point? Or are you some kind of language creationist that believes they were all handed to us in the Library of Eden? ;)

Hey, I'm defending you here. Radar is the one who thinks you aren't smart enough to come up with it on your own. I'm giving you credit for the construction of the term on the Planet.

[BucEyedPea]

What's even more funny is that he completely missed the point of the article that he posted, which is in effect that "neo-isolationist" is a made up term! ROFL
An illogical one at that. Since America's never been a true isolationist country aka a hermit country like 19th century Japan. Prefixing it with "neo" is out of sequence. since true isolationism would have come before in order for it to be a "new" isolationism.

It's being used here as an epithet, not as a point of reason.

[BucEyedPea]

I'd also like to add it was progressive internationalists on the left that originally coined the word isolation intended as an epithet. This today is our foreign policy elites aka the Establishment with their ally the MSM such as Time. It's no wonder Time is using it.

[Nightwish]

Skipped over this part I take it.No, I saw it. It just has nothing to do with what I'm asking you about.And what does Patt schooling you guys have to do with Teej asserting that he made up a term that’s been in our collective vocabulary for at least a few decades?In whose "collective vocabulary?" Is it commonplace for little-used phrases from obscure 30-year-old articles to enter the "collective vocabulary" of the American populace? And what exactly is pat "schooling" us on? He's not even in the ballpark with the meaning of "isolationist," so if pat is "schooling" anyone, I'd say that when they decide to seriously reform education in America, they should start with that one!

[Nightwish]

It's being used here as an epithet, not as a point of reason.
Exactly. What patteeu is doing here is trying to create a wedge talking point by conjuring up an obscure turn of phrase (whether he made it up on his own, or stubled across it in an ancient article that few around here are likely to have read and even fewer likely to have remembered), using it incorrectly, and hoping that none of us will notice how far out of the ballpark he is in applying it. It doesn't appear to be working, except perhaps with the few people who accompany patteeu in his own little choir box.

[patteeu]

I'd also like to add it was progressive internationalists on the left that originally coined the word isolation intended as an epithet. This today is our foreign policy elites aka the Establishment with their ally the MSM such as Time. It's no wonder Time is using it.

Why do you keep bringing old school isolationism into this conversation? No one is talking about that but you and the guy over there in the corner.

[patteeu]

No, I saw it. It just has nothing to do with what I'm asking you about.


In whose "collective vocabulary?" Is it commonplace for little-used phrases from obscure 30-year-old articles to enter the "collective vocabulary" of the American populace? And what exactly is pat "schooling" us on? He's not even in the ballpark with the meaning of "isolationist," so if pat is "schooling" anyone, I'd say that is probably the worst school in America.

Good school or bad school, you're still the guy in the corner wearing the dunce cap.

http://tonyskansascity.com/tonyskansascity/DunceCap.jpg

[Nightwish]

By the way, if patteeu did stumble across the term from the old Time article, then it seriously calls into question his judgment in trying to give his argument credibility by dredging up a term coined by a paranoid Nixon.

[Nightwish]

Good school or bad school, you're still the guy in the corner wearing the dunce cap.

http://tonyskansascity.com/tonyskansascity/DunceCap.jpg
Ooh, you sure got me with that one! Next!

[Cochise]

I always regarded neo-isolationist to be kind of funny.

You have Buc, who blames all the world's ills on the "neocon" boogeyman. You have Ron Paul, who might be called an isolationist, but whose supporters bristle at the term. So it's no surprise that combining the two rubs some people the wrong way.

And it's not without merit as a term when joined with isolationism. The meaning of the term should be pretty obvious, either a new revival of the old or a new twist on it. It's not as though English is a language where you can't create some kind of compound term on the fly and be understood. Everyone knows what he means, they just don't like being called isolationist.

"isolationist" is a word that has a negative connotation. Nobody wants to be called that, even people who are that. It's just like how someone who is pro-abortion doesn't want to be known as pro-abortion. They call themselves pro-choice and nuance into being "personally opposed" but for practical purposes, still pro-abortion. So around here you have Paul being called an isolationist, and his supporters nuancing his position into something else, which pat has goaded them by calling neo-isolationism. "Neo" evokes a visceral reaction from some people.

It's like how libs don't like the term "lib", because lib has a negative connotation, and so they started trying to invent their own viral terms like "con" or "pub" that they hoped could create a negative feeling among the general public. I always found it amusing that conservatives are proud to be called conservatives, but liberals, except among their own, don't want to be called liberal.

Anyway, I like the term, I think there's some adept basis for it, and since it annoys Pauls around here so much maybe we should all adopt it.

[Radar Chief]

What's even more funny is that he completely missed the point of the article that he posted, which is in effect that "neo-isolationist" is a made up term! ROFL

Funny? I like funny. Maybe you could point out where I posted it wasn’t a made up term and we could both get a big laugh. Can’t? Guess the jokes on you then. :loser:

[Taco John]

"isolationist" is a word that has a negative connotation. Nobody wants to be called that, even people who are that.


People don't like to be called Bigfoot either. Even people with big feet.

I couldn't identify an isolationist if I had to. If such a creature exists, I've never ran across one.

[patteeu]

Everyone knows what he means, they just don't like being called isolationist.

That's the ticket right there.

It's not like I'm calling him a "jadiofap" and people are scatching their heads saying "WTF?"

And I'm also not constantly watering the term down by calling everyone from Stalin to Noam Chomsky to Jean Kirkpatrick to Brit Hume to Dick Cheney the same thing.

Whether his supporters like it or not, Ron Paul is, for all practical purposes, the definition of a neo-isolationist.

[Radar Chief]

No, I saw it. It just has nothing to do with what I'm asking you about.

Then why’d you bring it up?

Since you seem to have issue with those criticizing pat, but don't seem to have issue with his use of the term, should we just assume that you are okay with that particular fiction?

In whose "collective vocabulary?" Is it commonplace for little-used phrases from obscure 30-year-old articles to enter the "collective vocabulary" of the American populace? And what exactly is pat "schooling" us on? He's not even in the ballpark with the meaning of "isolationist," so if pat is "schooling" anyone, I'd say that when they decide to seriously reform education in America, they should start with that one!

I’d say “our collective vocabulary”, since you don’t seem to recognize that as inherent, but that would tend to include people like you that seem to have a really tuff time keeping up with things.

Here are more recent examples of the terms use, since obviously didn’t know this on your own.

http://phronesisaical.blogspot.com/2005/09/neo-isolationism.html

http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2006/11/neoisolationism.html

[Nightwish]

Why do you keep bringing old school isolationism into this conversation? No one is talking about that but you and the guy over there in the corner.
Neo-isolationism is not fundamentally different from old-school isolationism. The main difference is in the focus of the discussion, with neo-isolationism, the discussion is more about military non-interventionism as the topic on the front burner, but it still does not exlude the economic prerequisite of isolationism.

[HonestChieffan]

He sort of made it into the kook category with abolish taxes and replace with nothing

[patteeu]

People don't like to be called Bigfoot either. Even people with big feet.

I couldn't identify an isolationist if I had to. If such a creature exists, I've never ran across one.

I don't know about an isolationist, but if you want to see a real live neo-isolationist, you should go to his next meetup (http://ronpaul.meetup.com/).

[patteeu]

Neo-isolationism is not fundamentally different from old-school isolationism. The main difference is in the focus of the discussion, with neo-isolationism, the discussion is more about military non-interventionism as the topic on the front burner, but it still does not exlude the economic prerequisite of isolationism.

As a matter of fact, yes it does.

[Nightwish]

"isolationist" is a word that has a negative connotation. Nobody wants to be called that, even people who are that. It's just like how someone who is pro-abortion doesn't want to be known as pro-abortion.
It also has a very specific meaning. People who aren't isolationists don't want to be called isolationists. In some cases, it may be like a pro-abortionist who doesn't want to be called pro-abortion, due to the negative connotation. In most cases, though, it is probably more like the agnostic who doesn't want to be called an atheist, because he isn't an atheist. Or the bald guy who doesn't want to be called a "skin head," because he's not a racist, he's just bald. Or the Libertarian who doesn't want to be called a Republican, because he's not a Republican, he just shares the small-government goal of some Republicans. Or the metrosexual who doesn't want to be called homosexual, because he's straight, he just has good fashion sense. Or the Kiwi who doesn't want to be called an Aussie, because he's not from Australia, he's from New Zealand and has a similar accent. So while there might be a handful of isolationists out there who object to the term solely because of the perjorative connotation (indeed, I doubt there are actually more than a handful of isolationists out there, period), most people accused of the term object because it doesn't apply. From what I've seen of Ron Paul, it's pretty clear that he is in the latter category.

[Cochise]

He sort of made it into the kook category with abolish taxes and replace with nothing

Uh oh.

[Taco John]

I don't know about an isolationist, but if you want to see a real live neo-isolationist, you should go to his next meetup (http://ronpaul.meetup.com/).



So what is a neo-isolationist? What are you trying to describe here?

Someone who doesn't favor empire building?

[Nightwish]

As a matter of fact, yes it does.As a matter of fact, no it doesn't. If you believe it does, then you have a mistaken understanding of neo-isolationism.
Neo-isolationism argues that America should bring its forces home and essentially keep them there. The United States has no business getting involved in political matters abroad. First, entangling alliances with other countries will only drag America into local disputes, as was the case in Europe throughout the 20th century, for instance. Second, involvement in international institutions will jeopardize American sovereignty, the right of the United States to make choices about what is in its national interest. Third, the internationalism that shaped American foreign policy for most of this century, especially during the Cold War, has come at the expense of the home front. Neo-isolationists say that America needs to reallocate major resources to solve this country’s many social ills. Moreover, this disengagement from world affairs is not limited to military matters. It also includes economics.

http://www.colby.edu/par/Winter%2000/grand%20strategy.htm

[BucEyedPea]

I always regarded neo-isolationist to be kind of funny.
Kinda hard when there aren't any.

You have Buc, who blames all the world's ills on the "neocon" boogeyman. You have Ron Paul, who might be called an isolationist, but whose supporters bristle at the term. So it's no surprise that combining the two rubs some people the wrong way.
Now see this is what you do: twist my words around. I have not blamed "all the world's ills" on the "neocon". That's bearing false witness for a Christian. Time for you to pray tonight and do a confession. Then repent.

"isolationist" is a word that has a negative connotation. Nobody wants to be called that, even people who are that.
Only because it conjures up an image of a hermit country that has no contact with the outisde world. It's a misnowmer. I happen to like different cultures, foreign countries and travel. I consider myself somewhat cosmopolitan. I am not provincial.

It's just like how someone who is pro-abortion doesn't want to be known as pro-abortion.
Not even in the same category of thing. This is a logical flaw.

They call themselves pro-choice and nuance into being "personally opposed" but for practical purposes, still pro-abortion. So around here you have Paul being called an isolationist, and his supporters nuancing his position into something else,
Both sides can play with that. I am sure a pro-choicer is pro-life if a mother wants to kill their teenager or a child wants to kill their mother. I am sure a pro-lifer would be pro-choice if a woman had a tumor growing on her body and wanted to have it removed.

...which pat has goaded them by calling neo-isolationism. "Neo" evokes a visceral reaction from some people.
No pat is twisting it around to suit his antagonism to those opposed to the Iraq invasion and occupation or the need to go after all kinds of Islamic terrorists by remaking the Middle East in an imperial nation building venture. The emotion of antagonism does this to people. They never recieve the communication as spoken they never field the ball.

It's like how libs don't like the term "lib", because lib has a negative connotation, and so they started trying to invent their own viral terms like "con" or "pub" that they hoped could create a negative feeling among the general public. I always found it amusing that conservatives are proud to be called conservatives, but liberals, except among their own, don't want to be called liberal.

I don't mind if you call me a paleo-con or non-interventionist. I have no issue with labels. I just like truth in labelling. Empire builder, neo-imperialist, neo-colonialist, neo-mercantilist would apply to pat's and your own argument. I'm sure you'd object though as you think its defensive.

Anyway, I like the term, I think there's some adept basis for it, and since it annoys Pauls around here so much maybe we should all adopt it.

Of course. I'm sure you wouldn't care for a term that painted you or pat a bigot toward Muslims either which clouds judgement. Most Christians have historical rancour towards them that blinds their judgement of our current situation. Both sides have done their share of wrong doing througout history and have refused to take responsibility for their end. I just takes one side to rise above the hostilities to handle the matter sanely. Instead we get reasoning skills held in suspended animation. Hearing different words instead.

[Cochise]

Now see this is what you do: twist my words around. I have not blamed "all the world's ills" on the "neocon". That's bearing false witness for a Christian. Time for you to pray tonight and do a confession. Then repent.

My favorite part of your act is when you take what is obviously an intended exaggeration literally and then call the person a liar. Show me pouty... :rolleyes:

Honorable mention to this not-the-first-time eyeroller of an appeal to religious authority.

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with you being either incapable of detecting any inflection of speech beyond the wooden, or pretending you can't whenever it serves.

[BucEyedPea]

I take what's written at face value instead of reading into things as much as I can unless a person wants to clarify it. Exaggeration is not always obvious as you seem to have missed mine done to match yours. You frequently misrepresent my position and when called on it act like the same pouty mouth you say I am. Take a look at it.....aren't you doing the same act? Yes.

[Radar Chief]

As a matter of fact, no it doesn't. If you believe it does, then you have a mistaken understanding of neo-isolationism.
[/size]

http://www.colby.edu/par/Winter%2000/grand%20strategy.htm

Ah, so you did know about the “neo-isolationist” term, knew of its use predating Pat’s dropping it here, and were just playing stupid. Or was it an act? :hmmm:

[BucEyedPea]

Oh here we go again, taco makes a good point about a flawed term being used by pat, parsing it and Radar's here to have pat's back and turn it into a full fledge tit-for-tat personal argument about each of our inabilities.

Time to exit this thread.

[Radar Chief]

Oh here we go again, taco makes a good point about a flawed term being used by pat, parsing it and Radar's here to have pat's back and turn it into a full fledge tit-for-tat personal argument about each of our inabilities.

Time to exit this thread.

Selective reading at its finest.
Teej didn’t point out the “flawed use” of a term, he claimed it didn’t exist until “Patty” made it up.
I pointed out the term has been around for well over 30 years and I’m somehow the bad guy here? :shrug: You freak’n slay me sometimes, BEP. ROFL

[Nightwish]

He sort of made it into the kook category with abolish taxes and replace with nothing
He didn't suggest abolishing taxes. He suggested abolishing the income tax, specifically, the IRS and the Federal Reserve (an institution of the sort to which the Founding Fathers were very much opposed).

[Radar Chief]

100.

[patteeu]

As a matter of fact, no it doesn't. If you believe it does, then you have a mistaken understanding of neo-isolationism.
[/size]

http://www.colby.edu/par/Winter%2000/grand%20strategy.htm

So which is it, did I make it up or is it an established concept? If I made it up, I think my definition should be considered authoritative.

If it's an established concept, we should make sure we understand it's meaning before we get too far ahead of ourselves. In that regard, you aren't helping us very much by cutting off the quote at that point. The professor's article goes on to indicate that only some neo-isolationists include an economic isolationist component in their philosophy. Ron Paul doesn't fall into that category, but he still fits under the professor's definition of the term because that's not an essential component.

Here's the full quote:

A final prospective grand strategy for America after the Cold War is neo-isolationism. Neo-isolationism argues that America should bring its forces home and essentially keep them there. The United States has no business getting involved in political matters abroad. First, entangling alliances with other countries will only drag America into local disputes, as was the case in Europe throughout the 20th century, for instance. Second, involvement in international institutions will jeopardize American sovereignty, the right of the United States to make choices about what is in its national interest. Third, the internationalism that shaped American foreign policy for most of this century, especially during the Cold War, has come at the expense of the home front. Neo-isolationists say that America needs to reallocate major resources to solve this country’s many social ills. Moreover, this disengagement from world affairs is not limited to military matters. It also includes economics. Some neo-isolationists are economic nationalists. They oppose an open international economy because the competition it produces has too many negative domestic economic and social consequences. Also, America’s leadership of the world economy over the last fifty years coincides with the decline of American power and the rise of our allies (the very same states we helped get back on their feet after World War II) as our principal competitors. America’s unique geo-strategic position as a great power amidst small powers and a great power separated from other great powers by thousands of miles of open water, neo-isolationists conclude, gives American statesmen special flexibility in their policies that statesmen of other countries do not have. Patrick Buchanan, a former member of the Republican Party and press secretary to President Nixon, is the most well known advocate of a strategy of neo-isolationism. Buchanan is currently seeking the Reform Party’s nomination for president.

Few scholars or policy practitioners consider neo-isolationism a viable grand strategy. Neo-isolationism is criticized for its particularly narrow understanding of the national interest as the physical security of the United States. In addition, in the absence of some degree of engagement in international politics, critics suggests that America may very well face potentially grave threats to its physical security, the very outcome neo-isolationism says it will prevent. Second, once institutionalized, neo-isolationism will be difficult to change in the event that circumstances abroad call for American engagement. Third, there is no guarantee that reducing defense spending will either result in new domestic spending or, regardless of where resources are allocated, improve the quality of everyday life in America.


That description screams Ron Paul!

I'm OK with either my version of neo-isolationism or Prof. Marquardt's. Either way, Ron Paul is a neo-isolationist.

[go bowe]

I take what's written at face value instead of reading into things as much as I can unless a person wants to clarify it. Exaggeration is not always obvious as you seem to have missed mine done to match yours. You frequently misrepresent my position and when called on it act like the same pouty mouth you say I am. Take a look at it.....aren't you doing the same act? Yes.no...

[patteeu]

Both sides can play with that. I am sure a pro-choicer is pro-life if a mother wants to kill their teenager or a child wants to kill their mother. I am sure a pro-lifer would be pro-choice if a woman had a tumor growing on her body and wanted to have it removed.

:spock:

[Cochise]

:spock:

I guess that garbled mess means that I'm for tumors' rights?

[go bowe]

So which is it, did I make it up or is it an established concept? If I made it up, I think my definition should be considered authoritative.

If it's an established concept, we should make sure we understand it's meaning before we get too far ahead of ourselves. In that regard, you aren't helping us very much by cutting off the quote at that point. The professor's article goes on to indicate that only some neo-isolationists include an economic isolationist component in their philosophy. Ron Paul doesn't fall into that category, but he still fits under the professor's definition of the term because that's not an essential component.

Here's the full quote:



That description screams Ron Paul!

I'm OK with either my version of neo-isolationism or Prof. Marquardt's. Either way, Ron Paul is a neo-isolationist.screams ron paul?

ok, RON PAUL!!!!1!!!!11!!!!!!

[Nightwish]

Ah, so you did know about the “neo-isolationist” term, knew of its use predating Pat’s dropping it here, and were just playing stupid. Or was it an act? :hmmm:I'm not particularly interested in whether he made it up or found it elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with anything. If TJ thinks he made it up, that's between pat and TJ. I'm more interested in the apparent fact that he doesn't know fully what it means, yet he's trying to use it to impugn a candidate he doesn't support.

And whether or not I have heard the term before has no bearing on your seeming implication that it is part of the "collective vocabulary." Since you didn't specify which collective you were referring to, then the default assumption would be that you were referring to either the collective vocabulary of DC Planeteers (and you had only to follow this thread for a few pages to realize that it obviously wasn't part of that collective), or to the collective vocabulary of the American populace, in which case the fact that you and I and maybe pat (though he didn't understand it correctly, it seems) have heard it before says nothing about its commonality in the collective vocabulary of the population. However, I had not intended to get involved in that particular sidebar (about whether or not pat made it up), so I'll say no more on that subject, as it doesn't relevant to much of anything.

[go bowe]

I guess that garbled mess means that I'm for tumors' rights?da-yumn...

do tumors have rights? [/bad girl]

it must be a neocon plot... [pea brain/]



i always wondered what a plot of neocons would look like...

i mean like the plots in a cemetery....

or maby plots like an assassination plot...

can you imagine if the neocons owned all the plots?

wow, president pea...

think of it...

[Nightwish]

So which is it, did I make it up or is it an established concept?
I don't know and don't care if you knew the term before you incorrectly used it. That's between you and TJ. I didn't make the accusation.

If I made it up, I think my definition should be considered authoritative.
What?!!? Patteeu believes his opinion should be considered authoritative? What a shocker! Roll out the presses!

If it's an established concept, we should make sure we understand it's meaning before we get too far ahead of ourselves. In that regard, you aren't helping us very much by cutting off the quote at that point. The professor's article goes on to indicate that only some neo-isolationists include an economic isolationist component in their philosophy. Ron Paul doesn't fall into that category, but he still fits under the professor's definition of the term because that's not an essential component.
Actually, that part of the quote does suggest it is an essential compenent. Where he suggests that some neo-isolationists differ is in the degree to which we should be removed from economic relations with the rest of the world. There are quite a few varying opinions within that community, some of which go to the extreme of full economic nationalism, as the good professor noted. All neo-isolationists believe in some degree of separation from the world market. Neo-isolationism (which in truth barely exists, because there are only a tiny handful of people who espouse it, and Ron Paul obviously isn't one of them) is a subcategory of isolationism, one which places a greater emphasis on modern militarism, but it does not abandon the essential economic component. That's why neo-isolationism and non-interventionism are separate terms, not considered synonymous. What you are mistaking as neo-isolationism is just non-interventionism, and it only seems radical at the moment because it is being espoused during an actual hot wartime, as opposed to being table talk during times of peace or cold war.

[Nightwish]

da-yumn...

do tumors have rights? [/bad girl]

it must be a neocon plot... [pea brain/]



i always wondered what a plot of neocons would look like...

i mean like the plots in a cemetery....

or maby plots like an assassination plot...

can you imagine if the neocons owned all the plots?

wow, president pea...

think of it...
Please, calmly step away from the hooka! I think you've had enough lately! ROFL

[BucEyedPea]

I guess that garbled mess means that I'm for tumors' rights?
What were you saying about missing exaggeration?
That was my own example of the same kinda twist on words. :p

[patteeu]

I don't know and don't care if you knew the term before you incorrectly used it. That's between you and TJ. I didn't make the accusation.


What?!!? Patteeu believes his opinion should be considered authoritative? What a shocker! Roll out the presses!


Actually, that part of the quote does suggest it is an essential compenent. Where he suggests that some neo-isolationists differ is in the degree to which we should be removed from economic relations with the rest of the world. There are quite a few varying opinions within that community, some of which go to the extreme of full economic nationalism, as the good professor noted. All neo-isolationists believe in some degree of separation from the world market. Neo-isolationism (which in truth barely exists, because there are only a tiny handful of people who espouse it, and Ron Paul obviously isn't one of them) is a subcategory of isolationism, one which places a greater emphasis on modern militarism, but it does not abandon the essential economic component. That's why neo-isolationism and non-interventionism are separate terms, not considered synonymous. What you are mistaking as neo-isolationism is just non-interventionism, and it only seems radical at the moment because it is being espoused during an actual hot wartime, as opposed to being table talk during times of peace or cold war.

I'll give you one more post to figure it out and then I'm going to leave you to flail around on your own or get help from someone else.

1. The definition the professor uses doesn't indicate that an economic component is essential. He doesn't "limit" neo-isolationism to military matters, but only "some" neo-isolationists are economic nationalists. Just another misreading on your part. Big surprise. :rolleyes:

2. In any event, Ron Paul's neo-isolationism does include a component of economic withdrawal from the status quo. In addition to wanting to have much less to do with multilateral political organizations, Dr. Paul wants us to withdraw from most, if not all, of our mulitlateral economic agreements (e.g. NAFTA).

3. Pat Buchanan is clearly labeled as a neo-isolationist by the professor, but despite Buchanan's protectionist tendencies, no reasonable person would argue that he is calling for the kind of "hermit country" BEP thinks an isolationist has to favor. I don't know where you stand on this, but it's clear that you don't have to contemplate a full economic withdrawal to be one of Prof. Marquardt's neo-isolationists.

4. Ron Paul is clearly a neo-isolationist according to Prof. Marquardt's criteria.

5. Thanks for posting the article. I'm going to save that link. It's like the guy saw Ron Paul coming years in advance. ;)

[BucEyedPea]

If I made it up, I think my definition should be considered authoritative.
What?!!? Patteeu believes his opinion should be considered authoritative?

If he coined something truly original instead of putting together a commonly understood and used before prefix to a term that's been used before for a hyphenated he could make this claim. But really anybody can add a prefix to a another word and try to claim a new definition; even when the old one was flawed as well and claim it's resurgence.

[patteeu]

Oh, and one more good quote from Dr. Marquardt:

Neo-isolationism, a fourth strategy, all but ends a leading role for America in world affairs.

That's Ron Paul's neo-isolationism, folks.

[patteeu]

If he coined something truly original instead of putting together a commonly understood and used before prefix to a term that's been used before for a hyphenated he could make this claim. But really anybody can add a prefix to a another word and try to claim a new definition; even when the old one was flawed as well and claim it's resurgence.

What do you call it when someone takes a term and flips the meaning on it's head the way you do with "neoconservative?"

"Neoconservative" was a term supposedly coined by Michael Harrington as a put down for some of his former allies from the left who had abandoned his ideology for conservatism. You like to imagine that they never really abandoned anything when they were famously "mugged by reality" and remain liberals to this day. That's a 180 degree flip. Your perversion of the term "neoconservative" is the antonym of the original "neoconservative." Neat trick.

[Nightwish]

I'll give you one more post to figure it out and then I'm going to leave you to flail around on your own or get help from someone else.Actually, I figured it out several years ago. It was one of several paradigms we studied in Philosophy at UMSL. I'll be glad to give you time time to figure it out, though.1. The definition the professor uses doesn't indicate that an economic component as essential.I suppose you have to have more experience with the idea than what a simple Google search will show you (which is mostly just journal articles on Nixon and Stalin). I have that experience from my university years. You might not.
He doesn't "limit" neo-isolationism to military matters, but only "some" neo-isolationists are economic nationalists. Just another misreading on your part.No, I didn't misread it. In fact, I specifically alluded to it. Marquardt is referring to full economic nationalism, an extreme withdrawal from the world market, which is espoused by a small number of neo-isolationists. Varying degrees of economic separation are espoused by all of them.2. In any event, Ron Paul's neo-isolationism does include a component of economic withdrawal from the status quo. In addition to wanting to have much less to do with multilateral political organizations, Dr. Paul wants us to withdraw from most, if not all, of our mulitlateral economic agreements (e.g. NAFTA).You're going to have to show us that. I've seen nothing in his remarks to suggest it.3. Pat Buchanan is clearly labeled as a neo-isolationist by the professor, but despite Buchanan's protectionist tendencies, no reasonable person would argue that he is calling for the kind of "hermit country" BEP thinks an isolationist has to favor.BEP didn't say that an isolationist has to favor the kind of "hermit country" isolation that nation's like Japan have endorsed. She said that the term is objectionable to many because it conjurs that kind of image. And she used Japan as an example of full-blown isolationism. I suspect she chose such an extreme counterexample because in your diatribe against Paul, you were trying so hard to paint him as an extremist.
I don't know where you stand on this, but it's clear that you don't have to contemplate a full economic withdrawal to be one of Prof. Marquardt's neo-isolationists.No, you don't, and I said as much. But you do have to contemplate some significant level of economic withdrawal (not just embargos and trade bans with hostile countries). 4. Ron Paul is clearly a neo-isolationist according to Prof. Marquardt's criteria.Until you produce some evidence of his advocation of economic withdrawal that you allege he endorses, then I'll let the jury remain out on that one.

[BucEyedPea]

No it's not, pat ( to your last post to me)
I said I use the word two ways. The founders and the followers. So long as someone agrees with more than 50% of their stands they're in that camp to a greater or lesser degree. That's how I do it. You do know even a dictionary may have multiple definitions. Just have to pick which fits the context. Take a look at how many entries the dictionary has for the word "if" or other very short words.

I use it no differently than many others that are traditional conservatives, right libertarians or even liberals against the Iraq Invasion and Occupation.

BTW I don't consider Cochise a neocon...he's a conservative who's hawkish on this war. But he is more conservative overall. Same with Cleveland Bronco.

[Cochise]

This dude is popping up everywhere. Top of the polls that I have seen.

Whats his story? Is he vote worthy?

What polls?

[BucEyedPea]

I consider Pat Buchanan to be more isolationist due to his trade and immigration views plus his foreign policy ( although not totally here as he was a Cold War hawk. )

[Nightwish]

No it's not, pat ( to your last post to me)
I said I use the word two ways. The founders and the followers. So long as someone agrees with more than 50% of their stands they're in that camp to a greater or lesser degree. That's how I do it. You do know even a dictionary may have multiple definitions. Just have to pick which fits the context. Take a look at how many entries the dictionary has for the word "if" or other very short words.

I use it no differently than many others that are traditional conservatives, right libertarians or even liberals against the Iraq Invasion and Occupation.

BTW I don't consider Cochise a neocon...he's a conservative who's hawkish on this war. But he is more conservative overall. Same with Cleveland Bronco.
The only person on this board that I would consider a neocon would be patteeu (he's basically admitted to it, when in one post he used "we" in reference to the neocons, though he did deny being one in the past, if I recall correctly).

[Taco John]

He sort of made it into the kook category with abolish taxes and replace with nothing



Only if you're a liberal...


http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulYoutubeCampaignFeatureWeek5of7.mp3

[BucEyedPea]

The only person on this board that I would consider a neocon would be patteeu (he's basically admitted to it, when in one post he used "we" in reference to the neocons, though he did deny being one in the past, if I recall correctly).
I'd say that's pretty much correct from my pov as well due to all his stands overall and all his quotes in his sig coming from leading neocons of our day.
I say it's his reading material...also from leading nc sources. I wouldn't say he's a Kristol-nacht exactly, but he's in the nc camp. But I don't want to convey the idea that I being perjorative with this....I am not. I really just think it fits and I do like pat;he's personable even admire some things about him. So I just want to add this. Most hard core neocons are really nasty folks.

But I have 4 for this board, two with an * as they don't post on much else except the war for me to really know. pat's the leading one...I'd have to agree.

[Cochise]

I consider Pat Buchanan to be more isolationist due to his trade and immigration views plus his foreign policy ( although not totally here as he was a Cold War hawk. )

In what way Pat Buchanan an isolationist that Ron Paul is not?

[BucEyedPea]

Pat's pretty much against free-trade. ( not just nafta)
He's an economic nationalist. Although, he used to support it.
He's also for freezing all immigration.
That and he doesn't believe in internationalist institutions such as the UN etc. which is the same for other conservatives. I think it's just the sum total. I wouldn't say he'd be like 19th century Japan either but his views move much closer to that to fit the term on a scale of 1-10 imo.

[patteeu]

No it's not, pat ( to your last post to me)
I said I use the word two ways. The founders and the followers. So long as someone agrees with more than 50% of their stands they're in that camp to a greater or lesser degree. That's how I do it. You do know even a dictionary may have multiple definitions. Just have to pick which fits the context. Take a look at how many entries the dictionary has for the word "if" or other very short words.

I use it no differently than many others that are traditional conservatives, right libertarians or even liberals against the Iraq Invasion and Occupation.

BTW I don't consider Cochise a neocon...he's a conservative who's hawkish on this war. But he is more conservative overall. Same with Cleveland Bronco.

That answer doesn't really have anything to do with the post I made. I'm not talking about your new neocons versus your founders. I'm talking about Irving Kristol. Harrington coined the term to describe a guy (Kristol) who abandoned liberalism to embrace conservatism, but you use the term to describe a guy (Kristol) who you say has never abandoned liberalism. Either the you are using the word incorrectly (my vote) or the word is it's own antonym. Whatever. I'm not going to belabor the point. Use it however you want. I plan to continue to use neo-isolationist.

[patteeu]

The only person on this board that I would consider a neocon would be patteeu (he's basically admitted to it, when in one post he used "we" in reference to the neocons, though he did deny being one in the past, if I recall correctly).

It depends on which of the many definitions you want to use. If you want to call me a neocon, I'm OK with it. I'm not Jewish, I've never been a liberal, and I'm not all that interested in spreading democracy around the world, but in other respects it might be considered accurate (i.e. I reject the neo-isolationism of people like BEP and Ron Paul).

[patteeu]

Pat's pretty much against free-trade. ( not just nafta)
He's an economic nationalist. Although, he used to support it.
He's also for freezing all immigration.

:spock: Interesting.

[Taco John]

Buchanan, not -teeu

[BucEyedPea]

It depends on which of the many definitions you want to use. If you want to call me a neocon, I'm OK with it. I'm not Jewish, I've never been a liberal, and I'm not all that interested in spreading democracy around the world, but in other respects it might be considered accurate (i.e. I reject the neo-isolationism of people like BEP and Ron Paul).
I reject the neo-imperialism of people like pat and Bush/Cheney.
Cheney's a Catholic I believe and Bush is a Protestant. You don't have to be Jewish to be a neocon...that's just the founding generation or their Brat Pak. Most are not today. I'd say you'd have to be dedicated to the defense of Israel though. I mean why else are we making the ME safe for democracy, going after Iran/Syria next besides resources. It's about control.

[BIG_DADDY]

I reject the neo-imperialism of people like pat and Bush/Cheney.
Cheney's a Catholic I believe and Bush is a Protestant. You don't have to be Jewish to be a neocon...that's just the founding generation or their Brat Pak. Most are not today. I'd say you'd have to be dedicated to the defense of Israel though. I mean why else are we making the ME safe for democracy, going after Iran/Syria next besides resources. It's about control.
Yep :thumb:

[patteeu]

I reject the neo-imperialism of people like pat and Bush/Cheney.
Cheney's a Catholic I believe and Bush is a Protestant. You don't have to be Jewish to be a neocon...that's just the founding generation or their Brat Pak. Most are not today. I'd say you'd have to be dedicated to the defense of Israel though. I mean why else are we making the ME safe for democracy, going after Iran/Syria next besides resources. It's about control.

Let's see, that's neoconservative definition 4(a)(iii) according to my scorecard. :p

[Nightwish]

That answer doesn't really have anything to do with the post I made. I'm not talking about your new neocons versus your founders. I'm talking about Irving Kristol. Harrington coined the term to describe a guy (Kristol) who abandoned liberalism to embrace conservatism, but you use the term to describe a guy (Kristol) who you say has never abandoned liberalism.
Harrington didn't coin the term, it's been around since at least the late 19th century, though it meant something different back then. It first came into vogue with a meaning along the lines of what it means today (i.e. liberals embrancing conservative philosophies) in the 1930s in Germany, ironically to describe certain people sympathetic to the Nazi party. Harrington was just the first to promininently use the term in a derisive manner, though he wasn't the first to turn it into a perjorative (that may have been Dwight McDonald, during WWII, though it's not clear whether he was critical of neoconservatives in general, or only certain ones).

Though most trace the founding of modern neoconservativism to Irving Kristol, he himself borrowed the philosophy from Leo Strauss. Some of Strauss's writings are a bit alarming, but are easily seen in the philosophies of the modern neoconservative movement, especially in the philosophies that have earned the neocons the greatest enmity.

Other elements of the philosophy of Strauss are controversial because they express ideals contrary to democracy. According to an analysis by Jim Lobe for the Inter Press Service News Agency, Strauss believed the world to be a place where policy advisers may have to deceive their own publics and even their rulers in order to protect their countries.

Shadia Drury of the University of Regina, author of 1999's Leo Strauss and the American Right, says "Strauss was neither a liberal nor a democrat... Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical (in Strauss's view) because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them. .. The Weimar Republic (in Germany) was his model of liberal democracy for which he had huge contempt," added Drury. Liberalism in Weimar, in Strauss's view, led ultimately to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews.

According to Drury, Strauss, like Plato, taught that within societies, "some are fit to lead, and others to be led". But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that "those who are fit to rule are those who realise there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior".

For Strauss, "religion is the glue that holds society together", said Drury, who added that Irving Kristol, among other neo-conservatives, has argued that separating church and state was the biggest mistake made by the founders of the U.S. republic.

"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing", because it leads to individualism, liberalism and relativism, precisely those traits that might encourage dissent, which in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. "You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty," according to Drury.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Leo_Strauss

[Jenson71]

Cheney's a Catholic I believe

God no, Methodist. ;)

[BucEyedPea]

God no, Methodist. ;)
Thank you for telling me that. I was told that by a Catholic friend who I assumed knew. I had a hard time with the idea especially due to the Pope on the war and Christian Just War Doctrine and Cheney all in one breath. Hence why I said "believe". I wasn't sure.

Is his wife Methodist too?

Gee, Hillary is a Methodist too.

Nightwish, Excellent post about Strauss and his relationship to the NeoCons. I've mentioned the NC's as being followers of Strauss...who had Machiavellian ideas of governing.

Your link mentioned the Weekly Standard...which is why I call it the Weekly Slandered. It's a lie factory.

I also found this in your link: "Strauss's influence on foreign policy decision making (he never wrote explicitly about the subject himself) is usually discussed in terms of his tendency to view the world as a place where isolated liberal democracies live in constant danger from hostile elements abroad, and face threats that must be confronted vigorously and with strong leadership."

Seems like this man is a paranoid meglomaniac and the solution is permanent warfare. Next stop Iran.

[Nightwish]

Seems like this man is a paranoid meglomaniac and the solution is permanent warfare. Next stop Iran.
In his case, the paranoia is understandable, he was a product of the world he lived in. As a German Jew, living in Germany until the 1930s, he was there when the Nazis were on the rise, and though he moved away to England just before the Holocaust (or at least the concentration camps) started, he had to be keenly aware of what was being done to his people, as well as the growing tensions between the European states, so I'm sure that environment had a big impact on his philosophy.

[BucEyedPea]

In his case, the paranoia is understandable, he was a product of the world he lived in. As a German Jew, living in Germany until the 1930s, he was there when the Nazis were on the rise, and though he moved away to England just before the Holocaust (or at least the concentration camps) started, he had to be keenly aware of what was being done to his people, as well as the growing tensions between the European states, so I'm sure that environment had a big impact on his philosophy.
Well, its no wonder the paranoia over Iran and the use of the term "holocaust" by the Bush administration regarding Iran.

I can be sympathetic to this mind set in an average person,who went through the same, but not one who has such influence over our politicians because it's not rational. He's operating as if he's in the past mentally, just because a few things are similar currently. Probably not a fully conscious thing though. Just the same.

[patteeu]

Harrington didn't coin the term, it's been around since at least the late 19th century, though it meant something different back then. It first came into vogue with a meaning along the lines of what it means today (i.e. liberals embrancing conservative philosophies) in the 1930s in Germany, ironically to describe certain people sympathetic to the Nazi party. Harrington was just the first to promininently use the term in a derisive manner, though he wasn't the first to turn it into a perjorative (that may have been Dwight McDonald, during WWII, though it's not clear whether he was critical of neoconservatives in general, or only certain ones).

:spock: So you're trying to tell me that Germans coined an English term? Brilliant! :rolleyes:

Look, I'm sure the idea of putting the "neo" prefix in front of another word to mean "new version of this old concept" isn't a new idea, but the term neoconservative as it has been used in American politics of the late 20th century was coined by Harrington to describe his former allies like Kristol. Perhaps someone put the word neoconservative together in some bygone era to describe a different version of some kind of return to conservatism, but Harrington is the guy who deserves the credit for the modern version.

And as far as your comment about Straus and his influence on the neocons is concerned, so what? Almost everything is derivative.

[Nightwish]

:spock: So you're trying to tell me that Germans coined an English term? Brilliant! :rolleyes:
It certainly wouldn't be the first time. There are quite a few words and phrases for psychological and philosophical ideas that occur in English, but which are translations of German or other foreign words. In developmental psychology, for instance, there is a phrase that enjoys very popular usage, called "Storm and Rage." It was also coined by the Germans, only their phrase was "Sturm und Strang." Same thing. At any rate, in the 1930s, Germans were using a phrase (which has been translated into English as "neo-conservative") to refer to something very similar to our modern concept of neoconservativism.

but the term neoconservative as it has been used in American politics of the late 20th century was coined by Harrington to describe his former allies like Kristol. Perhaps someone put the word neoconservative together in some bygone era to describe a different version of some kind of return to conservatism, but Harrington is the guy who deserves the credit for the modern version.
I agree that he deserves the lion's share of credit for popularizing the term. But he did not coin the term, nor was he even the first to use it in a perjorative sense. He was the first to use it in such a way and in the right medium for it to find its way into popular culture (prior to his publishing the term, it was limited to just a few small intellectual circles, mostly in academia). To coin the term, you have to be the first one to have ever used it in the sense in which it is being used, not simply be the one who brought it from obscurity into popularity.

And as far as your comment about Straus and his influence on the neocons is concerned, so what? Almost everything is derivative.
Yes, but the point is that it was some of the most disturbing and anti-democratic tendencies of Strauss's philosophies that found their way into the modern neoconservative movement and into the neoconservative doctrine espoused by PNAC and its members (current and former) in the Bush Administration.

[go bowe]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944411,00.html

So “Patty” made up the term “neo-isolationism” just this last summer? All on his own?
Well, I suppose it’s a compliment to give him credit for creativity he doesn’t own.that article is dated today...

obviously patteeu coined the phrase over the summer and the magazine is just now catching up with him...

edit: ok, i missed the date of the original article...

just call me a moran...

[Nightwish]

that article is dated today...

obviously patteeu coined the phrase over the summer and the magazine is just now catching up with him...
The article is dated May 31, 1971.

[Radar Chief]

that article is dated today...

obviously patteeu coined the phrase over the summer and the magazine is just now catching up with him...

HOW REAL IS NEO-ISOLATIONISM?
Monday, May. 31, 1971 By JOHN L. STEELE

Stellen Sie die crack pfeife hin.

[patteeu]

It certainly wouldn't be the first time. There are quite a few words and phrases for psychological and philosophical ideas that occur in English, but which are translations of German or other foreign words. In developmental psychology, for instance, there is a phrase that enjoys very popular usage, called "Storm and Rage." It was also coined by the Germans, only their phrase was "Sturm und Strang." Same thing. At any rate, in the 1930s, Germans were using a phrase (which has been translated into English as "neo-conservative") to refer to something very similar to our modern concept of neoconservativism.

I'll take that as agreement that the Germans didn't coin the English word "neoconservative." How do you translate a word into a language that doesn't have that word without creating a new one?


Yes, but the point is that it was some of the most disturbing and anti-democratic tendencies of Strauss's philosophies that found their way into the modern neoconservative movement and into the neoconservative doctrine espoused by PNAC and its members (current and former) in the Bush Administration.

I don't accept that most of those "disturbing and anti-democratic tendencies" are a part of the modern neoconservative movement. And to the extent that some of them do apply (e.g. the idea that sometimes deception is required to protect your country) it's not at all uniquely related to neoconservatism, nor is it disturbing.

[Nightwish]

I'll take that as agreement that the Germans didn't coin the English word "neoconservative." How do you translate a word into a language that doesn't have that word without creating a new one?
It did exist in the Enlish language, at least as early as the 1880s.

I don't accept that most of those "disturbing and anti-democratic tendencies" are a part of the modern neoconservative movement.
I didn't say "most of." I said "some of the most ... " Two different things.

And to the extent that some of them do apply (e.g. the idea that sometimes deception is required to protect your country) it's not at all uniquely related to neoconservatism, nor is it disturbing.
I'm sure it's not uniquely related to neoconservativism. In fact, I'd say there's a better than even chance that it's been related to quite a number of regimes over the course of the years. And it is disturbing that Americans should embrace such a policy. The fact that you don't find it disturbing makes me thank the heavens that there's little to no chance that you'll ever be put into a position of making policy for this country.

[patteeu]

It did exist in the Enlish language, at least as early as the 1880s.

You're arguing in a circle here. The Germans didn't coin the English word "neoconservative." But this isn't important so I'll agree to disagree with you or let you have the last word if you want it.

I didn't say "most of." I said "some of the most ... " Two different things.

OK, we've reached the point where you've lost the bead on the conversation. You identified X characteristics when you said "some of the most...." My "most of" refered to that X.

I'm sure it's not uniquely related to neoconservativism. In fact, I'd say there's a better than even chance that it's been related to quite a number of regimes over the course of the years. And it is disturbing that Americans should embrace such a policy. The fact that you don't find it disturbing makes me thank the heavens that there's little to no chance that you'll ever be put into a position of making policy for this country.

The unrealistic and utopian idea that any government could adequately protect us without keeping secrets and using deception is what would be dangerous. I'm thankful that only a harmless and powerless fringe of our society would ever believe such a thing.

[Nightwish]

You're arguing in a circle here. The Germans didn't coin the English word "neoconservative." But this isn't important so I'll agree to disagree with you or let you have the last word if you want it.I'm arguing in a circle? Seems to me I've been pretty consistent from the start. From the get-go, I said that Harrington didn't coin the term, that it has been in use in America since at least the late 19th century, that it was in use in Germany in the 1930s, with much the same meaning as now, and that it was in perjorative use in America in the 1940s. I haven't deviated from any of those points. Despite your protestation that the Germans couldn't have been using it since it's an English word (for some reason, it didn't dawn on you that words and phrases can be translated, and whether or not they used the English version, when their words were translated into English, it was the word "neoconservative" that was used), they were using it. You have failed to debunk the point that Harrington did not use it first, was not the first to use it perjoratively, and was not the first to use it to refer to liberals adopting or switching over to conservative philosophies. In other words, he didn't coin the term, exactly as I've maintained all along. Simply put, you are wrong, once again.OK, we've reached the point where you've lost the bead on the conversation. You identified X characteristics when you said "some of the most...." My "most of" refered to that X.The word "most" has multiple meanings, and can be used in both a quantitative sense (of the greatest quantity), or in a qualitative sense (of the greatest extreme). I used it in the qualitative sense, and you tried to turn it around as if I'd used it in the quantitative sense. When you used "most of" to refer to that X, you created a strawman, since I had not, at any point, quantified the disturbing elements of his philosophies. I only said that some of the ones that are most disturbing have found their way into modern neoconservative thought.The unrealistic and utopian idea that any government could adequately protect us without keeping secrets and using deception is what would be dangerous. I'm thankful that only a harmless and powerless fringe of our society would ever believe such a thing.The fact that you believe this tripe make me call into question not only your judgment, but also your character. It's a pretty sad commentary when an American comes to believe it's okay for the government to lie to and deceive its own people. It's pretty telling, actually. Now I understand why you have such trouble understanding that the Iraq war was built on lies and deception. It's not that you honestly don't think there was lying or deception involved, it's that you don't think there is anything wrong with it.

[patteeu]

The word "most" has multiple meanings, and can be used in both a quantitative sense (of the greatest quantity), or in a qualitative sense (of the greatest extreme). I used it in the qualitative sense, and you tried to turn it around as if I'd used it in the quantitative sense. When you used "most of" to refer to that X, you created a strawman, since I had not, at any point, quantified the disturbing elements of his philosophies. I only said that some of the ones that are most disturbing have found their way into modern neoconservative thought.

I didn't have any confusion over how you were using the word. You, on the other hand continue to be deeply confused by this whole conversation. I'm sorry for you and I have no interest in going round and round without any justifiable hope that you will ever figure it out. :rolleyes:

[Baby Lee]

da-yumn...

do tumors have rights? [/bad girl]

it must be a neocon plot... [pea brain/]



i always wondered what a plot of neocons would look like...

i mean like the plots in a cemetery....

or maby plots like an assassination plot...

can you imagine if the neocons owned all the plots?

wow, president pea...

think of it...
Plot plot, fizz fizz, oh what a relief it is.

[Nightwish]

I didn't have any confusion over how you were using the word.
Since you couldn't discern the difference between the quantitative and qualitative senses of the word, obviously you were confused. Either that, or you were deliberately putting words into my mouth to try to force me into an argument I wasn't making. Which one of the two is it, pat? Were you just confused, or intentionally trying to mislead? There isn't an option C, here.

[go bowe]

Aren't all terms made up at some point? Or are you some kind of language creationist that believes they were all handed to us in the Library of Eden? ;)

Come on, guys, can't we reach out to one another and get along? Whether I had the brilliantly creative idea to combine neo with isolationist myself or whether I adopted someone else's idea isn't really that important. What's important is that we all use it so that we don't have some kind of Tower of Babel thing going on in here.babel?

i've never seen you babble, but i have no doubt that it would be highly entertaining...

as far as getting along, that would suck all the fun right out of the planet...

who would be left to bash meme?

on the other hand, it would be lots of fun to watch pea brain and meme battle it out in a cage match...

i could probably sell tickets to that one... :D :D :D

[go bowe]

Plot plot, fizz fizz, oh what a relief it is.LMAO LMAO LMAO

[go bowe]

The article is dated May 31, 1971.details details...

that date doesn't fit my lame joke, so i ignored it...

:p :p :p

[go bowe]

Stellen Sie die crack pfeife hin.what's this?

something about putting down the crack pipe?

i don't have a crack pipe, but i do have a chronic pipe...

and i think i might use it pretty soon, then come back to post more simple-minded stuff...

brb...

[patteeu]

Since you couldn't discern the difference between the quantitative and qualitative senses of the word, obviously you were confused. Either that, or you were deliberately putting words into my mouth to try to force me into an argument I wasn't making. Which one of the two is it, pat? Were you just confused, or intentionally trying to mislead? There isn't an option C, here.

If you have half a brain, you can reread the posts on your own and figure out where you've gone wrong.

[Nightwish]

If you have half a brain, you can reread the posts on your own and figure out where you've gone wrong.
I don't about where I went wrong, but I knew you went wrong (at least, one of the many points you went wrong) when you claimed I had said that "most of Strauss's disturbing philosophies" found their way into modern neoconservative thought, when in fact I had not said any such thing. And you're spinning at your best to try to avoid admitting your error, but you're not getting away with. Did I say it? Or did I not say it? It's a yes or no question, there's no gray area. Either yes, I said it, or no, I didn't. I know the answer. I'm pretty sure you do, too, though for some bizarre reason, you're loathe to admit it.

[patteeu]

I don't about where I went wrong, but I knew you went wrong (at least, one of the many points you went wrong) when you claimed I had said that "most of Strauss's disturbing philosophies" found their way into modern neoconservative thought, when in fact I had not said any such thing. And you're spinning at your best to try to avoid admitting your error, but you're not getting away with. Did I say it? Or did I not say it? It's a yes or no question, there's no gray area. Either yes, I said it, or no, I didn't. I know the answer. I'm pretty sure you do, too, though for some bizarre reason, you're loathe to admit it.

With the search functions available in modern web browsers, even a moron could figure out that I didn't say any such thing. It's not surprising to me that you aren't up to the task. I'm through with this.

[Radar Chief]

what's this?

something about putting down the crack pipe?

i don't have a crack pipe, but i do have a chronic pipe...

and i think i might use it pretty soon, then come back to post more simple-minded stuff...

brb...

Since the topic had gone to German terms turned into Ameri-English, I thought you might get a kick out of it stated that way. ;)

[Nightwish]

With the search functions available in modern web browsers, even a moron could figure out that I didn't say any such thing. It's not surprising to me that you aren't up to the task. I'm through with this.

Yes, but the point is that it was some of the most disturbing and anti-democratic tendencies of Strauss's philosophies that found their way into the modern neoconservative movement and into the neoconservative doctrine espoused by PNAC and its members (current and former) in the Bush Administration.

I don't accept that most of those "disturbing and anti-democratic tendencies" are a part of the modern neoconservative movement.

In post 137, I used it in the qualitative sense. In post 141, you responded as if I had used it in the quantitative sense (implying that I said as much). If you can't see the difference, that's on you.

[patteeu]

In post 137, I used it in the qualitative sense. In post 141, you responded as if I had used it in the quantitative sense (implying that I said as much). If you can't see the difference, that's on you.

Incorrect.

I know I should just ignore your painful obtuseness, but I'll give it one more try. You, using "most" in a qualitative sense, listed X Strausian beliefs which you asserted were held by today's neocons. I objected, using "most" in a quantitative sense but it was in relation to your "X" not your "most".

The Bush administration should never have bothered with waterboarding high value prisoners when they could have just made them spend an afternoon discussing something with you instead.

[Nightwish]

Incorrect.Are you denying that you said "most of" (the quantitative sense) in post 141? I know you're not going to try to convince us that you were referring only to "most of" the examples I bolded in the quotes from/about Strauss, since there were only two of the disturbing philosophies presented, by way of example, (three were bolded, but two were restating the same thing, the one you happened to agree with), and nobody uses "most of" to refer to only one half of two, unless they're complete morons. So that leaves us with the original two options - you were confused and are loathe to admit it, or you were deliberately creating a strawman to divert the discussion from points for which you had no good defense. I'm betting it's the latter.

[patteeu]

Are you denying that you said "most of" (the quantitative sense) in post 141? I know you're not going to try to convince us that you were referring only to "most of" the examples I bolded in the quotes from/about Strauss, since there were only two of the disturbing philosophies presented, by way of example, (three were bolded, but two were restating the same thing, the one you happened to agree with), and nobody uses "most of" to refer to only one half of two, unless they're complete morons. So that leaves us with the original two options - you were confused and are loathe to admit it, or you were deliberately creating a strawman to divert the discussion from points for which you had no good defense. I'm betting it's the latter.

I've edited my response.

[Nightwish]

Incorrect.

I know I should just ignore your painful obtuseness, but I'll give it one more try. You, using "most" in a qualitative sense, listed X Strausian beliefs which you asserted were held by today's neocons. I objected, using "most" in a quantitative sense but it was in relation to your "X" not your "most".
So now you're trying to tell us that you were saying "most of" two? There were only two examples provided (though one was expounded upon in another bolded statement), one with which you agreed. That left only one of two with which you disagreed. One of two is half. It's not most. Nobody who has at least an elementary grasp of English uses "most" to refer to half of two. You must have been homeschooled.

[patteeu]

So now you're trying to tell us that you were saying "most of" two? There were only two examples provided (though one was expounded upon in another bolded statement), one with which you agreed. That left only one of two with which you disagreed. One of two is half. It's not most. Nobody who has at least an elementary grasp of English uses "most" to refer to half of two. You must have been homeschooled.

It's really quite simple. Your overly simplistic count does not match mine.

And what's with this "us"? I'm sure this trivial, mind-numbingly dumb argument has succeeded in killing this thread. For my part in that I'd apologize to the rest of the board, but there's no point because they quit reading a dozen back-and-forths ago.

[Nightwish]

It's really quite simple. Your overly simplistic count does not match mine.
What was your count? I counted two:

1. That effective governance requires a government to deceive its population (with which you agreed). This one was expounded upon in a second paragraph.

2. That only two rights exist - the right to rule, and the right to be ruled over.

[Nightwish]

And what's with this "us"? I'm sure this trivial, mind-numbingly dumb argument has succeeded in killing this thread.
Considering the way you've been kept backpedaling since page 1 of this thread, I have no doubt that you'd like nothing more than for this thread to die and your various missteps to be forgotten. Hmmm, should I allow that to happen?

[patteeu]

What was your count? I counted two:

1. That effective governance requires a government to deceive its population (with which you agreed). This one was expounded upon in a second paragraph.

2. That only two rights exist - the right to rule, and the right to be ruled over.

What I agree with is that national security sometimes requires secrecy and deception. What I mean by that is that it requires us to keep secrets from the enemy and to deceive the enemy. That means I'm only partially agreeing with the point in which you credit me with full agreement. I don't agree that neocons necessarily believe that there is a need to deceive their own population (to any greater degree than any politician in a democracy at least), but the obvious need to deceive the enemy, in this day and age where we have global communications, sometimes can't help but deceive the domestic population. Indeed, one of the most convincing ways to deceive the enemy would be with a deceptive message that the enemy believes is generated for domestic consumption.

Beyond that, I don't agree with the notion of a need for "perpetual" deception. I do agree that strong leaders who tell the country what's good for them are important.

And I don't agree that the second quote applies at all.

[patteeu]

Considering the way you've been kept backpedaling since page 1 of this thread, I have no doubt that you'd like nothing more than for this thread to die and your various missteps to be forgotten. Hmmm, should I allow that to happen?

:rolleyes: Yeah, that's it.

[Nightwish]

What I agree with is that national security sometimes requires secrecy and deception. What I mean by that is that it requires us to keep secrets from the enemy and to deceive the enemy. That means I'm only partially agreeing with the point in which you credit me with full agreement. I don't agree that neocons necessarily believe that there is a need to deceive their own population (to any greater degree than any politician in a democracy at least), but the obvious need to deceive the enemy, in this day and age where we have global communications, sometimes can't help but deceive the domestic population. Indeed, one of the most convincing ways to deceive the enemy would be with a deceptive message that the enemy believes is generated for domestic consumption.
In other words, you've been suckered exactly the way they hoped you would be. And you've bought the bullshit hook, line and sinker.

[go bowe]

ok, so does anyone besides Taco John and BucEyedPea like Ron Paul.

I like to make my presidential decisions based on the opinions of Chiefs fans, not Donko and Succaneer fans. :Pi don't particularly like to be included in the same sentence with those two, but i do like ron paul...

although his name still sounds like rupaul to me...

i love his ideas on defence and foreign policy...

most of all i love his outspoken candor and willingness to put his somewhat radical ideas (or just for pea brain: neocon ideas) out there for people to judge for themselves...

he's a little bit kooky around the edges, but his point of view is very refreshing in an odd sort of way...

if obama doesn't get the nomination, i would seriously consider voting for ru, er.. ron paul...

[go bowe]

No, Teej just made up lies, or looked like an out of touch bafoon. Take your pick.bafoon?

bafoon?

were you going for buffoon?

or baboon?

nttiawwt :p

[go bowe]

. . .John Murtha's plan to win in Iraq by redeploying our forces to Okinawa where they would be prepared to re-engage at a moment's notice if necessary...didn't we already do that?

and now ron paul the bafoon wants to bring the troops home from okinawa...

after all the base closings here at home, are there going to be enough bases left for 160,000 redeployed troops?

[go bowe]

Ok, you guys can hash out it's meaning. Doesn’t change the idiocy behind claiming he made the term up though does it? :shrug:nope...

as the cited article from time indicates, nixon used the term...

and his use of it was definitely derogatory...

[go bowe]

Oh, I see... You're not interested in actual discussion... You're just trying to "catch me!" Hahaha! Ooooh look at me! Running around! Weeeee! Radar is chasing me! Wooooo!


HAHAHA!


Ok, no more playing... The big people are trying to talk.trying to talk?

do you need some remedial speech classes or something?

[go bowe]

No, I saw it. It just has nothing to do with what I'm asking you about.In whose "collective vocabulary?" Is it commonplace for little-used phrases from obscure 30-year-old articles to enter the "collective vocabulary" of the American populace? And what exactly is pat "schooling" us on? He's not even in the ballpark with the meaning of "isolationist," so if pat is "schooling" anyone, I'd say that when they decide to seriously reform education in America, they should start with that one!the time article indicated that nixon had used the term, and i have some vague recolletion that the term had been in use in at least some parts of academia during the early seventies...

my collective vocabulary includes neo-isolationist...

i think...

[go bowe]

Exactly. What patteeu is doing here is trying to create a wedge talking point by conjuring up an obscure turn of phrase (whether he made it up on his own, or stubled across it in an ancient article that few around here are likely to have read and even fewer likely to have remembered), using it incorrectly, and hoping that none of us will notice how far out of the ballpark he is in applying it. It doesn't appear to be working, except perhaps with the few people who accompany patteeu in his own little choir box.sorry. i don't do choir boxes...

[go bowe]

I always regarded neo-isolationist to be kind of funny.

You have Buc, who blames all the world's ills on the "neocon" boogeyman. You have Ron Paul, who might be called an isolationist, but whose supporters bristle at the term. So it's no surprise that combining the two rubs some people the wrong way.

And it's not without merit as a term when joined with isolationism. The meaning of the term should be pretty obvious, either a new revival of the old or a new twist on it. It's not as though English is a language where you can't create some kind of compound term on the fly and be understood. Everyone knows what he means, they just don't like being called isolationist.

"isolationist" is a word that has a negative connotation. Nobody wants to be called that, even people who are that. It's just like how someone who is pro-abortion doesn't want to be known as pro-abortion. They call themselves pro-choice and nuance into being "personally opposed" but for practical purposes, still pro-abortion. So around here you have Paul being called an isolationist, and his supporters nuancing his position into something else, which pat has goaded them by calling neo-isolationism. "Neo" evokes a visceral reaction from some people.

It's like how libs don't like the term "lib", because lib has a negative connotation, and so they started trying to invent their own viral terms like "con" or "pub" that they hoped could create a negative feeling among the general public. I always found it amusing that conservatives are proud to be called conservatives, but liberals, except among their own, don't want to be called liberal.

Anyway, I like the term, I think there's some adept basis for it, and since it annoys Pauls around here so much maybe we should all adopt it.here, here!

i'll second that motion...

[Radar Chief]

bafoon?

bafoon?

were you going for buffoon?

or baboon?

nttiawwt :p

Either or. They both wind up with the “red ass”. ;)

[go bowe]

You're arguing in a circle here. The Germans didn't coin the English word "neoconservative." But this isn't important so I'll agree to disagree with you or let you have the last word if you want it.



OK, we've reached the point where you've lost the bead on the conversation. You identified X characteristics when you said "some of the most...." My "most of" refered to that X.



The unrealistic and utopian idea that any government could adequately protect us without keeping secrets and using deception is what would be dangerous. I'm thankful that only a harmless and powerless fringe of our society would ever believe such a thing.hey, what happened to neoconservatives and neo-isolationists?

now we're talking about government secrecy and deception...

did jaz just show up or something?

[go bowe]

Either or. They both wind up with the “red ass”. ;)LMAO

maby you shouldn't have said this...

my ginormous belly is shaking the house...

because i am laughing so hard...

good gawd, i hope the floor doesn't break...

[patteeu]

hey, what happened to neoconservatives and neo-isolationists?

now we're talking about government secrecy and deception...

did jaz just show up or something?

You're right. Let's get back to talking about the differences between the neo-isolationism of Ron Paul and the neoconservatism of Reagan. ;)