Great news: Your permanent record is now available on demand

I think you misunderstand (no surprise) the term “one of us”…of course you want to be “one of us” or you wouldn’t post your thoughts on a forum of “us”…nice try to pretend, but you are posting a lot of posts not to be “one of us, or one of yours”…of course you won’t see the irony in your faux indignation.

right2bright on December 13, 2012 at 12:06 PM

You have it backwards.

Dante on December 13, 2012 at 12:07 PM

I’m sure there are as many iterations of what people think anarcho-capitalism is as there are variations of conservatism or liberalism. I was just pointing out that you weren’t a professed liberal and provided a link to give folks some idea of what that is.

Oldnuke on December 13, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Oh, I agree. I hope I didn’t come across as critical of you; I appreciated the link. I just had some disagreements with it.

Dante on December 13, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Hell, I feel like I’m trying to explain color to a blind man.

You tell us, Dante – what conservative would EVER make a case for “spreading the wealth around”, or “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”, as Obama has? That’s just a couple of fundamental, organic differences between the left and right, off the top of my head, and there are myriad other self-evident differences that you are utterly blind to.

Hate to hit-n-run, but gotta go work for a while…

Harbingeing on December 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Meanwhile, the GOP ushers in Medicare Part D, has no interest in eliminating the income tax, is all for interventionist foreign policy, increases regulations, supports Keynesian economics, says Obamacare needs to be replaced (not eliminated, but replaced), and favors “foreign aid,” among other things. Please.

Dante on December 13, 2012 at 12:15 PM

You tell us, Dante – what conservative would EVER make a case for “spreading the wealth around”, or “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”, as Obama has? That’s just a couple of fundamental, organic differences between the left and right, off the top of my head, and there are myriad other self-evident differences that you are utterly blind to.

Hate to hit-n-run, but gotta go work for a while…

Harbingeing on December 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Oh, by the way … you said there are differences between parties, but then these are not examples of parties; you shifted it to conservatives and Obama.

Dante on December 13, 2012 at 12:17 PM

From what I can tell Neocon means whatever the author of the statement wants it to mean.

DanMan on December 13, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Then maybe you should do a little research into neoconservatism since you don’t know what it means.

Here’s a starting point for you:

An Introduction to Neoconservatism

Link 2

Even I, frequently referred to as the “godfather” of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a “movement,” as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a “persuasion,” one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.

Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility.

Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the “American grain.” It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies.

Dante on December 13, 2012 at 2:51 PM

I see that Dante is still ranting about BOOSH!!! and the dreaded NEOCONS!!!.

steebo77 on December 13, 2012 at 3:02 PM

You don’t read very well. Not once have I mentioned neoconservatives in this thread until just above when someone said they didn’t know what it was. It’s a shame you have to make things up and resort to juvenalia. I guess you are overcompensating.

Dante on December 13, 2012 at 3:24 PM