Has anyone noticed that the Neo-cons are supporting Barack Obama?

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Wow, Obama really does bring people together.

The neocons, Hamas, and radical black leaders all support Obama. Maybe instead of trying to discredit him, we should recognize his ability to listen to all different groups.

My meter blipped a little.

but in case it was a false positive..."listen" != consider or be willing to make concessions. Listen could very well be followed by hysterical laughter and a big FUCK YOU.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Dari
Limbaugh is not a neocon by any stretch of the imagination. Are you starting these anti-Obama threads to justify your support of McCain?

Ideologically he's a lot closer to the "new"(or neo) conservative than to that of the traditional conservative.
And no I don't currently support any of these candidates as the top three really only differ on the surface. Non of them will "change" anything.

FOR smaller gov't?
FOR less taxes?
FOR US sovereignty?

Thats NOT a neo con. Thats traditional.

That's the platform that Bush ran on and that's what all the republicans say. The fact is the Bush administration have spent more money than any government in our history and the senate & house, both democrat and republican, have played right along.
I don't care what they say I care what they do.
We'll never ever get change if we don't start scrutinizing the voting records of the people we elect. Both parties are monumental spenders and when it comes time to vote the republicans always vote for;
larger government
more taxes
and against U.S. sovereignty.
Rush has supported these neo-cons for many years through thick and thin.
if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's probably a duck.

Im not arguing that. Im arguing principles. dont confuse the two.

Oh and dont have any illusions. Bush spent more than Clinton
who spent more than Bush
who spent more than Reagan
who spent more than Carter
who spent more than Ford
who spent more than Nixon
who spent more than Johnson
who spent more than Kennedy
who spent more than Eisenhower....on and on and on.

Get it? And guess what-the next president will spend more than GWB.

Principles? I'm not really sure what you're arguing.
Principle (N)
1 : general or fundamental law
2 : rule or code of conduct or devotion to such a code

If you aren't adhering to your principle, or "code of conduct", or if you are going in the exact opposite direction of those principles then what does that make you?

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Wow, Obama really does bring people together.

The neocons, Hamas, and radical black leaders all support Obama. Maybe instead of trying to discredit him, we should recognize his ability to listen to all different groups.

Talk is cheap. If he would start voting against the war I might have at least one reason to support him.
Votes talk and bullshit walks.
Actually I'm wrong. In America today
Bullshit talks and voting record means absolutely nothing.

 

[blackangst1]

Perry dude...you got confused somewhere. You said "Ideologically he's a lot closer to the "new"(or neo) conservative than to that of the traditional conservative." speaking of Rush.

The current batch (most anyway) of GOP (what you would call neo-cons) is for BIG government...INCREASED spending...stripping of personal rights. Rush is NOT "for" these ideas. So no. Youre wrong in your statement.

 

[nageov3t]

haven't really noticed this at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

Perry404 is apparently a beta tester for rightwing agitprop- he's running every imaginable piece of anti- Obama anti- Democrat crap up the flagpole to see if anybody will salute...

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Perry dude...you got confused somewhere. You said "Ideologically he's a lot closer to the "new"(or neo) conservative than to that of the traditional conservative." speaking of Rush.

The current batch (most anyway) of GOP (what you would call neo-cons) is for BIG government...INCREASED spending...stripping of personal rights. Rush is NOT "for" these ideas. So no. Youre wrong in your statement.

Has Rush not supported the current administration? Has he not defended the war on terror? Has he not defended the patriot act every step of the way? no...I think the man is perfectly in line with the current neo-con agenda. Because he can get the words "smaller government" off his tongue means very little. Even Bush can do that.
I think you're the one who's confused.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Perry404
Has Rush not supported the current administration?

Not lock stop and barrel. Most conservative talking heads I've heard support about 50% of his policy. Thats hardly an endorsement. Obviously youre talking out of your ass since you dont actually listen to them.

Originally posted by: Perry404
Has he not defended the war on terror?

Somewhat. But, like most, wants a pull out plan. I wouldnt expect you to know this, as you dont listen to him, only parrot the left's bullshit.

Originally posted by: Perry404
Has he not defended the patriot act every step of the way?

No. Some things yes, others, no.

Originally posted by: Perry404
I think the man is perfectly in line with the current neo-con agenda. Because he can get the words "smaller government" off his tongue means very little. Even Bush can do that.
I think you're the one who's confused.

you are seriously living in a bubble of your own lies. Very, very confused. You throw around leftist propaganda words to sound intelligent, when in fact youre pulling it out of your ass. You sound like a RP supporter actually.

Oh wait...

 

[Lemon law]

I still think this thread is much do do about nothing.

We know much by now about the GWB foreign policy. More than enough to label him a lying sack of shit and we don't even know a 1/4 of it yet.

The hypothesis that an Obama Presidency would have neocons thinking elements to it is an unmade case. Even if Obama does use someone like Zbiginiew Brezenzski as an adviser, is still no guarantee that his analysis of a given situation will be the victorious policy decision.

That failure of the GWB Presidency is largely in having a single set of monochrome advisers and better Presidents listen to a wide range of viewpoints.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Perry404
Has Rush not supported the current administration?

Not lock stop and barrel. Most conservative talking heads I've heard support about 50% of his policy. Thats hardly an endorsement. Obviously youre talking out of your ass since you dont actually listen to them.

Originally posted by: Perry404
Has he not defended the war on terror?

Somewhat. But, like most, wants a pull out plan. I wouldnt expect you to know this, as you dont listen to him, only parrot the left's bullshit.

Originally posted by: Perry404
Has he not defended the patriot act every step of the way?

No. Some things yes, others, no.

Originally posted by: Perry404
I think the man is perfectly in line with the current neo-con agenda. Because he can get the words "smaller government" off his tongue means very little. Even Bush can do that.
I think you're the one who's confused.

you are seriously living in a bubble of your own lies. Very, very confused. You throw around leftist propaganda words to sound intelligent, when in fact youre pulling it out of your ass. You sound like a RP supporter actually.

Oh wait...

Leftist propaganda? Lol.
Ok I'll let you have the last word.
I think it's an interesting point and I encourage others to watch sources like fox news and drudge report when McCain and Obama really start to do battle. That is assuming of course that Obama can defeat Hillary.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Perry404I think the further we get along in the primaries the more this will become obvious to people. What this says to me is that Barack Obama's ideology is closer to that of the neo-conservatives than is John McCains. What other possible explanation could there be for the far right thinkers to support a democratic candidate?

I think it's less about their liking Obama and more about their desire to boycott the Republicans and Jaun McAmnesty (not that Obama is any better on the immigration issue).

[Edit] Perhaps I don't fully understand exactly what a "neo-con" is, but as I think about it, I tend to think that they would actually be in favor of mass immigration whereas your traditional "conservatives" would be the ones against it. After all, there are Republicans, such as Bush, who support mass immigration.

 

[Vic]

I've noticed that some neocons are eager for Hillary Clinton's downfall, but I would hardly describe that sentiment as support for Obama. Unless the OP lives in some simple-minded world where the enemy of your enemy is always your friend.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Perry404I think the further we get along in the primaries the more this will become obvious to people. What this says to me is that Barack Obama's ideology is closer to that of the neo-conservatives than is John McCains. What other possible explanation could there be for the far right thinkers to support a democratic candidate?

I think it's less about their liking Obama and more about their desire to boycott the Republicans and Jaun McAmnesty (not that Obama is any better on the immigration issue).

[Edit] Perhaps I don't fully understand exactly what a "neo-con" is, but as I think about it, I tend to think that they would actually be in favor of mass immigration whereas your traditional "conservatives" would be the ones against it. After all, there are Republicans, such as Bush, who support mass immigration.

No...I understand exactly what A neo-conservative is thank you very much. Obviously it's a protest. My entire point is that it's very interesting that they feel that Barack Obama is closer to their ideals than John McCain.
After all you're not going to pick a protest vote and choose an individual whom is even further away from those ideals that you are attempting to attain.

 

[GrGr]

Obama, Hillary and McCain have all bent their knees to AIPAC/the neocons. Unless you do this you are not considered a serious candidate by the media.

 

[Thump553]

Patently absurd argument. I should have been clued off by the Nazi salute reference, or at least by the Ron Paul signature of the OP.

Neo-cons were behind Rudy G. When he folded they jumped into the McCain camp. Who does Rove talk up every single night on Fox? McCain. And look at which camp has hired whom.

This posting has not been originated by, cleared or approved by any vast media conspiracy.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Perry404I think the further we get along in the primaries the more this will become obvious to people. What this says to me is that Barack Obama's ideology is closer to that of the neo-conservatives than is John McCains. What other possible explanation could there be for the far right thinkers to support a democratic candidate?

I think it's less about their liking Obama and more about their desire to boycott the Republicans and Jaun McAmnesty (not that Obama is any better on the immigration issue).

[Edit] Perhaps I don't fully understand exactly what a "neo-con" is, but as I think about it, I tend to think that they would actually be in favor of mass immigration whereas your traditional "conservatives" would be the ones against it. After all, there are Republicans, such as Bush, who support mass immigration.

No...I understand exactly what A neo-conservative is thank you very much. Obviously it's a protest. My entire point is that it's very interesting that they feel that Barack Obama is closer to their ideals than John McCain.
After all you're not going to pick a protest vote and choose an individual whom is even further away from those ideals that you are attempting to attain.

You arent getting it. Conservatives are supporting Obama FOR THE TICKET not for the presidency.

 

[JS80]

The only way republicans will install Obama is to set up this liberal for failure (Obama WILL ruin the country) and get a real conservative in 2012 (like Carter to Reagan) rather than vote for a Democrat running under the Republican ticket. However, this would be a HUGE risk in that Obama can appoint another Ginsberg to the Supreme Court.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80
The only way republicans will install Obama is to set up this liberal for failure (Obama WILL ruin the country) and get a real conservative in 2012 (like Carter to Reagan) rather than vote for a Democrat running under the Republican ticket. However, this would be a HUGE risk in that Obama can appoint another Ginsberg to the Supreme Court.

More sage advice from JS80 everyone! Please explain exactly what policies Obama will enact and their consequences that will lead to our country being 'ruined'. I would love to hear what mature, well thought out answers you will undoubtedly have.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Perry404I think the further we get along in the primaries the more this will become obvious to people. What this says to me is that Barack Obama's ideology is closer to that of the neo-conservatives than is John McCains. What other possible explanation could there be for the far right thinkers to support a democratic candidate?

I think it's less about their liking Obama and more about their desire to boycott the Republicans and Jaun McAmnesty (not that Obama is any better on the immigration issue).

[Edit] Perhaps I don't fully understand exactly what a "neo-con" is, but as I think about it, I tend to think that they would actually be in favor of mass immigration whereas your traditional "conservatives" would be the ones against it. After all, there are Republicans, such as Bush, who support mass immigration.

No...I understand exactly what A neo-conservative is thank you very much. Obviously it's a protest. My entire point is that it's very interesting that they feel that Barack Obama is closer to their ideals than John McCain.
After all you're not going to pick a protest vote and choose an individual whom is even further away from those ideals that you are attempting to attain.

You arent getting it. Conservatives are supporting Obama FOR THE TICKET not for the presidency.

McCain and his followers may say he'd rather run against Obama, but it would be much easier to fire up the troops with Hillary running. Obama just doesn't inspire the hate the Clintons do. Plus, the GOP has had years to research the Clintons and drag all that garbage back up. There really haven't been any major Hillary scandals because Obama sure isn't going to bring them up and the GOP doesn't want to wound her in the primaries.

As for the OP, I must say, your threads are so out there they are fun to read. To briefly address the topic, if conservatives are attacking McCain, it's because they are anti-McCain and not pro-Obama. Remember, they basically believe he stabbed the GOP in the back with campaign finance reform and by being part of the Gang of 14 that prevented the removal of the filibuster. I think they realized they got screwed either way.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: rockyct

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Perry404I think the further we get along in the primaries the more this will become obvious to people. What this says to me is that Barack Obama's ideology is closer to that of the neo-conservatives than is John McCains. What other possible explanation could there be for the far right thinkers to support a democratic candidate?

I think it's less about their liking Obama and more about their desire to boycott the Republicans and Jaun McAmnesty (not that Obama is any better on the immigration issue).

[Edit] Perhaps I don't fully understand exactly what a "neo-con" is, but as I think about it, I tend to think that they would actually be in favor of mass immigration whereas your traditional "conservatives" would be the ones against it. After all, there are Republicans, such as Bush, who support mass immigration.

No...I understand exactly what A neo-conservative is thank you very much. Obviously it's a protest. My entire point is that it's very interesting that they feel that Barack Obama is closer to their ideals than John McCain.
After all you're not going to pick a protest vote and choose an individual whom is even further away from those ideals that you are attempting to attain.

You arent getting it. Conservatives are supporting Obama FOR THE TICKET not for the presidency.

McCain and his followers may say he'd rather run against Obama, but it would be much easier to fire up the troops with Hillary running. Obama just doesn't inspire the hate the Clintons do. Plus, the GOP has had years to research the Clintons and drag all that garbage back up. There really haven't been any major Hillary scandals because Obama sure isn't going to bring them up and the GOP doesn't want to wound her in the primaries.

As for the OP, I must say, your threads are so out there they are fun to read. To briefly address the topic, if conservatives are attacking McCain, it's because they are anti-McCain and not pro-Obama. Remember, they basically believe he stabbed the GOP in the back with campaign finance reform and by being part of the Gang of 14 that prevented the removal of the filibuster. I think they realized they got screwed either way.

I would agree with that. But, unfortunately, thats the mindset of the majority. We dont FOR someone, we vote anyone BUT someone else.

 

[Braznor]

...nm....

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: JS80
The only way republicans will install Obama is to set up this liberal for failure (Obama WILL ruin the country) and get a real conservative in 2012 (like Carter to Reagan) rather than vote for a Democrat running under the Republican ticket. However, this would be a HUGE risk in that Obama can appoint another Ginsberg to the Supreme Court.

Obama will ruin the country? Yeah, the Republicans are doing such a bang up job right now. :roll:

 

[HeXploiT]

HA! What a godsend. I don't think I could have asked for better evidence to back up the thread title. People who were So SURE that I was wrong need to take some time to stop and think about WHY the neo-cons are supporting people like Obama. The truth is the democrats and republicans are walking arm in arm and the foolish American sheep are so damn busy wasting time and energy arguing about evolution and religion they don't pay any attention to what's happening with the real issues of power.
WATCH AND UNDERSTAND

----------------------------------------------

 

[nageov3t]

Rupert Murdoch isn't a neocon, he's an opportunist capitalist.

he saw there was money to be made in branding fox as the anti-Clinton News Network... now he sees the groundswell of support for Obama and seems to be considering that there might be money made in trying to join the MSNBC Obama lovefest.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. the denial must be delicious-

Obama WILL ruin the country

It's like claiming dating a boy you don't like will sully your teenage daughter's reputation, even though she boinked the whole football team, including the canine mascot, and half of America has seen the video.

Contemplating America's past infatuation with the neocons is much the same- we've been used and abused. Some of us even liked it, and want more. Even those of us against it all along will look back on it and feel tawdry, at best, merely because we were somehow associated with it...

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Neocons would love nothing more than to offload their Iraq mess onto a Democrat who they can then blame for all their failures.

Not to mention the state of the economy...

Who in their right mind would want to be in office to preside over the nation's upcoming train wreck? Even if a candidate knew what we needed to do (end illegal immigration and mass immigration, enact trade protectionism, set up a zero population growth or negative population growth program) he'd never be able to enact it.