Come on liar quote me.
Sonny, what’s the point of copying and pasting, again, what you said ?
Come on liar you stated lies, time to back them up.
Are you retarded ? go to page 3 and read it.
Can we stop with the your a “liar, no you’re a liar” stuff?
Hey Juan looks like I didn’t state what you said. Thanks for lying!
I already gave my reason for what I did say.
“I presented him as a classic liberal/conservative because he was a member of both parties. Spinning it by leaving out the /conservative is disingenuous propaganda that you like to peddle in”.
Though neo-conservative is more accurate.
LOL!
…
You made absolutely no mention of him being a liberal/conservative only by party names, if thats what you meant then your reply was complete non-sequitar and nonsensical as Roosevelt wasn’t in the Progressive Socialist Party.
Given that you’re wrong, maybe you should tone it down a little. This is a big stretch for you. It’s not like other websites. Nearly everyone here is in the upper 5th percentile. You’re going to be challenged on the most minute details (as Juan was doing to me earlier this evening). That’s par for the course. Accept it, and be the bigger man. You’ll get some respect for that.
We were doing so well over the last week. You were even discussing 9/11 without being excessively insulting.
I never said by party names but party affiliations. The UK liberal party was a classically liberal party.
I thought the ‘/’ meant, or implied, “a combination of the two”, in this context. I don’t see how he isn’t answering you by admitting that his previous assessment wasn’t as accurate as the label ‘neo-conservative’ is.
In any case, the confusion of some people to consider Churchill even remotely classically liberal (aside from any possible rhetoric he might’ve borrowed from for political gain) isn’t totally outrageous, as the link shows.
I don’t see how PT is continually lying in this case :\
Moot distinction, you never said party at all.
Exactly, which is why I used both words with a / and believe neo-conservative to be more accurate. Juan was attempting to state I was only calling him a classical liberal which is a lie.
Read him in context maybe ?
If only you knew what that was.
I thought it meant either/or. Obviously, conservatism is not classic liberalism.
If it is a combination of the two, classic liberalism and neo-conservatism are an even less likely match.
Whether Poptech lied is largely irrelevant. He’s woefully unfamiliar with Austrian perspectives, and approaches every topic with the Glenn Beck libertarian perspective, which I think we (excepting Poptech) would be able to agree, is not libertarian at all.
So it’s not as much a matter of dishonesty, as inaccuracy. He’s wrong. The liar, liar claims I believe relate to whether something was posted or not.
Either way, right now, Poptech will still object to Roosevelt being fascist (he was) or Churchill being fascist (he was). And that makes him still wrong.
Oh come on. Classical liberal/conservative has nothing to do with ‘neo-conservative’. I said Churchill was a fascist and Poptech denied it. A few days ago, according to Poptech, Churchill was a “classical liberal/conservative” - now it seems that Poptech has got a better grasp on Churchill and admits that Churchill was after all a neo-con
Maybe I should settle for that, cause admitting that Churchill was a neocon sort of concedes the point that WWII was a fascist war on both sides.
Neo-Conservatives, Progressives and Socialists are not Fascists.
Since it was your reply to him, he knows what it should have been. If the reply was merely referencing party affiliation then it makes no sense as a reply.
But that makes no sense. A neo-conservative is even more removed from classic liberalism than just plain conservatism. NeoCons are actually Straussians. Radical fascists.