I will do that when you provide a dictionary entry defining what a “quasi-classical-liberal/conservative” is. Thanks.
I concur. They both were fascists.
You complained when I called you a neocon (which you are) - then you called churchill a neocon (which he was) - and now you are quibbling about the meaning of the word, again ?
How come you called churchill a neocon if the word can’t be found in the dictionary ?
I’ve read all of them (though not everything they have written) and I think Irving Kristol is an idiot. Yet you just divert because you cannot define the word.
The proper usage of words in school requires a dictionary. Schools do not accept freely defined words.
Nope, I am pointing out the continued misuse of words.
What? Not supporting a Christian Theocracy or not believing Sarah Palin is the right-wing messiah?
Now you are lying. I would appreciate it if you would stop lying about me, thank you.
So if I disagree with Lew on an issue, I am wrong?
Only because they misuse the word “statist”.
Laissez faire is socialist?
Really my foreign policy views are imperialist? What country do I want the U.S. to control?
Then big L Libertarians do not exist? You are now contradicting yourself.
Why can you not answer the question?
So it is discussed.
Yes I know he is an anarcho-capitalist.
I will when the misuse of words stops. I read all the time. “insightful” is subjective. I always ask questions to further my knowledge.
quasi- (defined) - “To some degree; in some manner”
classical (defined) - “traditional in style or form”, liberal (defined) - “believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society”
conservative (defined) - “belonging to or supporting the British political party which opposes sudden social change, high taxation and government involvement in industry”
Who says it cannot? You keep misusing words. So since you called me a neo-con, I want to know what you called me.
a - first letter of the alphabet.
b - second letter of the alphabet.
c - third letter of the alphabet.
Shall I go own ?
By the way, do you realize that putting together “classical” and “liberal” you don’t get the correct definition of classical liberal ?
You, like any self-respecting neocon, believe in the virtue of the american murderers known as ‘the american military’ and believe in the righteousness of WWII. It seems you also deny the clear fascist character of the american political system.
Then maybe you can define it for me but regardless I probably should not have used “classical liberal” but rather “UK liberal” or something to denote the UK liberal party’s political beliefs.
Please define neo-con.
Yes the American military is great. Ron Paul served in it too. Yes WWII was righteous.
Define fascist and explain how the definition of the word describes the character of the american political system.
Have you ever lived in the United States?
I tried to help you, but you’ve made it pretty clear you’re just here to argue and troll.
I’m sorry Poptech.
So I am only allowed to agree? I am trolling for not joining the collective? Fascinating logic.
Alright. It is clear that poptech has discredited himself throughout much of this argument and has revealed himself to be the neocon that he is. Can you all stop hassling him and being so mean to him? He probably is having a heck of a good time doing this- but I did not intend for this topic to become one about Poptech. Poptech is a neocon who favors force.
I’m a libertarian. He isn’t. He favors using the military force to suppress other nations who we don’t need to be in a war with. He obviously doesn’t understand the concept of liberty. I get that.
Can we please move on and discuss the topic at hand?
Done. Thanks for playing.
Well, you asked how conservatives discredit libertarians and you had an object lesson ? =P
Really how?
Define neo-con.
I do? Prove it.
Define neo-con.
I really wanted to talk about Republican conservatism.
I didn’t mean to make this thread about people who like Poptech say they’re for small government but really endorse the use of force regardless by any means despite the fact that it’s wrong.
I think that Republican conservatives discredit us as a whole when they talk about socialism. They talk about socialism and they don’t change any of their side’s statism. It’s funny because Republicans will always say they’re for smaller government… yet they never follow through their words with their actions. They don’t take steps to make government smaller. They even make government bigger with the patriot act… and then they discredit even further the small government ideology they preach about while not practicing what they preach.
You discredited yourself when you said that Winston Churchill was a classical liberal. He wasn’t a classical liberal of the sort. He favored central banking.
Plus, you continuously defend the wars that the US military wages (like WWII) out of some patriotic binge or something.
What is wrong is subjective. I endorse the U.S. Military existing and being used for defensive purposes not nation building as you lied about above.
yeap, that’s why it’s not working and many people are waking up to that fact.
The NAP is objective. Property rights are objective. Therefore the implications of what they provide are de facto objective.
I said he was a classic liberal/conservative. Classic liberal defined as the ideology held by the UK liberal party. I have since redefined him as a neo-conservative (did you not read this?).
Yes I defend WWII and will continue to do so. Unlike you I was not a supporter of the socialist and fascist empires who were conquering countries.