[Huntster]

Quote:
1) "Unjustified blind extremism" isn't the only thing you're "ignoring"

2) It appears that you're exercising "unjustified blind extremism" with your very post

Filler. Cheap shots. Really giving your position a good name, there, Huntster.

Fun. Accurate. Obviously painful. And since I'm a "voice in the wilderness", and most here don't like me at all, I'm not too squeamish about my "good name", grassroots.

Quote:
3) The Bush Administration engaged in war with both Iraq and Afghanistan with the blessings of Congress

So what?

So both wars were properly authorized by our legislative branch of government, so "Bush Bashing" is shown to be the immature, partisan game that many of us recognized long ago.

Quote:
4) With regard to Iraq, the war was partially the fulfillment of the Iraq Liberation Act, signed into law by President Clinton, and cited in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution

So... what?

So the Iraq War was partially an extension of the previous administration and Congress, and so the "Bush Bashing" is shown to be the immature, partisan game that many of us recognized long ago.

Quote:
5) With regard to Afghanistan, since I'm having a difficult time figuring out what is there that a corporation might want to profit from, can you inform us more about the corporate largess resulting from this "imperialist venture"?

Companies profit off of defense contracting, reconstruction, and even mercenary work in the case of Blackwater corporation.

They're doing that right at home within the borders of the good, ole' U.S. of A.

The state department contracts security in embassies around the world.

U.S. corporations were the ones who build Saudi, Iraqi, and other oil infrastructure (that was promptly nationalized later), anyway.

No need for a war for corporations to profit. No need to bribe or pressure the administration and Congress to start a war for profit.

Maybe you need to spend more time in the Conspiracy Theory forums.

Quote:
6) With regard to Afghanistan, it was clearly a nation friendly with Al Qaeda, used as a base for the same, and was attacked by President Clinton prior to the 9/11 attacks with naval launched cruise missiles

But that doesn't change the fact that Al Qaeda was only the pretext for the invasion and not the real reason. If Bush had argued that kind of intervention on behalf of 'national interest,' there probably would have been a greater backlash against it.

Were you on a spaceship in September, 2001?

If Al Qaeda was the "pretext", the former World Trade Center was the text, George Bush was the narrator, and the moral to the story is "you're fucked now".

Quote:
It has been general knowledge in America that our government is not out for the interests of the average person, unless we force them to be.

That's terrible.

I suggest you find a home that is more amenable to your needs.

What's terrible? The people, united, forcing rich bureaucrats and businessmen to share the wealth?

No.

Your inability to force rich bureaucrats and businessmen to "share" the wealth.

We're living in a very mobile age. Wealth isn't created in this country with factories well anchored in taxing districts.

If you keep up the redistribution shit, the rich "fuckers" might just pack up their laptops and move to more amenable climes.............with their riches.

Give me a fucking break. I'd rather change the one I have.

Good luck, Robin Hood.

Quote:
I classify "The Left" with all whining that comes from military action, along with bleating about the "needs" of the "common man".

'The Left' is anyone against military action?

The Left whines about just military action.

There are some incredibly right-wing people who don't support the Iraq War. If you consider libertarianism right-wing, Ron Paul is an example.

Yeah. There's one.

And I repeat "one".

[grassroots1]

So both wars were properly authorized by our legislative branch of government, so "Bush Bashing" is shown to be the immature, partisan game that many of us recognized long ago.

By now you should have seen enough of me to know that I don't participate in that 'partisan bush-bashing.' Any of my complaints toward George Bush generally come with a general denunciation of the system we're involved with right now, whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican.

So the Iraq War was partially an extension of the previous administration and Congress, and so the "Bush Bashing" is shown to be the immature, partisan game that many of us recognized long ago.

And, if you're right, it also shows that George Bush lied to the American people when he claimed that the reasons for our invasion were the 'War on Terror' and 'WMDs.'

No need for a war for corporations to profit. No need to bribe or pressure the administration and Congress to start a war for profit.

Maybe you need to spend more time in the Conspiracy Theory forums.

Have you never heard the name Halliburton? I'm not saying corporations shouldn't make a profit, that is, of course, what they are designed to do, but I'm saying the kind of profiteering and political opportunism (favoring oil companies) that went on is absolutely despicable.

Were you on a spaceship in September, 2001?

If Al Qaeda was the "pretext", the former World Trade centre was the text, George Bush was the narrator, and the moral to the story is "you're fucked now".

Whether premeditated or not, the Bush administration used 9/11 and the threat of terrorism as a pretext for their wars.

No.

Your inability to force rich bureaucrats and businessmen to "share" the wealth.

We're living in a very mobile age. Wealth isn't created in this country with factories well anchored in taxing districts.

If you keep up the redistribution shit, the rich "fuckers" might just pack up their laptops and move to more amenable climes.............with their riches.

I don't believe I called them fuckers. 'Redistribution shit.' Taxation is a necessity in society, you can't expect people to happily starve for the sake of our long term economic benefit. Think a little bit.

The Left whines about just military action.

Before your definition was anyone who 'whines' about military action, and now you don't think that's legit? OK, can I have your new one? I'd like to get this nailed down to prevent further confusion in the future. By the way, my definition of the left, it's the right one.

Yeah. There's one.

And I repeat "one".

I'm sure there are many more whose names aren't in mainstream media.

[Huntster]

Quote:
So both wars were properly authorized by our legislative branch of government, so "Bush Bashing" is shown to be the immature, partisan game that many of us recognized long ago.

By now you should have seen enough of me to know that I don't participate in that 'partisan bush-bashing.'

1) I don't know you from Adam

2) If so, what's this: "The Bush administration clearly took advantage of 9/11 to accomplish things that would benefit their corporate connects and them personally, not the American people."

Any of my complaints toward George Bush generally come with a general denunciation of the system we're involved with right now, whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican.

Yeah. Right.

Show me some of your criticism of the "system" with Obama named.

Quote:
So the Iraq War was partially an extension of the previous administration and Congress, and so the "Bush Bashing" is shown to be the immature, partisan game that many of us recognized long ago.

And, if you're right, it also shows that George Bush lied to the American people when he claimed that the reasons for our invasion were the 'War on Terror' and 'WMDs.'

No, it doesn't. More, from the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 authored by Congress:

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

This shows that there were a number of justifications, and that Congress also accepted the same faulty intelligence that the administration did (not to mention Blair and the UK Parliament).

Quote:
No need for a war for corporations to profit. No need to bribe or pressure the administration and Congress to start a war for profit.

Maybe you need to spend more time in the Conspiracy Theory forums.

Have you never heard the name Halliburton?

Hey, genius: I am a retired Army contracting official. I've managed contracts with Halliburton subsidiaries as well as numerous other contractors. I know the system inside and out, and I'm telling you that none of those corporations needed Afghanistan to make money. Hell, we have Alaska Native Corporations operating DoD contracts in South America, of all places.

Oh, BTW, George Bush and Ted Stevens got along like oil and water...............

I'm not saying corporations shouldn't make a profit, that is, of course, what they are designed to do, but I'm saying the kind of profiteering and political opportunism (favoring oil companies) that went on is absolutely despicable.

Like the above link shows, you really don't have a clue. I could tell you stories that would blow your mind............

Quote:
Were you on a spaceship in September, 2001?

If Al Qaeda was the "pretext", the former World Trade centre was the text, George Bush was the narrator, and the moral to the story is "you're fucked now".

Whether premeditated or not, the Bush administration used 9/11 and the threat of terrorism as a pretext for their wars.

Pretext:

–noun
1. something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse: The leaders used the insults as a pretext to declare war.
2. the misleading appearance or behavior assumed with this intention: His many lavish compliments were a pretext for subtle mockery.

Excuse me, but it is the opinion of many people (in the U.S. and abroad) that 9/11 and terrorism are just reasons for the U.S. to go to war. Nearly 3,000 people died in that single terrorist event. That closely approaches the devastation wreaked by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Afghanistan (the Taliban) was given options that it could have used to avoid war and they chose not to exercise them.

9/11 and terrorism weren't "something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object". They were the real, fucking tamale.

Quote:
No.

Your inability to force rich bureaucrats and businessmen to "share" the wealth.

We're living in a very mobile age. Wealth isn't created in this country with factories well anchored in taxing districts.

If you keep up the redistribution shit, the rich "fuckers" might just pack up their laptops and move to more amenable climes.............with their riches.

I don't believe I called them fuckers.

May as well. They damned sure don't like your redistribution schemes, and I don't blame them.

'Redistribution shit.' Taxation is a necessity in society, you can't expect people to happily starve for the sake of our long term economic benefit. Think a little bit.

Ah, backed off of "the people, united, forcing rich bureaucrats and businessmen to share the wealth?" Now it's just "taxation is a necessity in society"?

You've already painted yourself. You're busted, Socialist. "Sharing the wealth" is redistribution, not necessary taxation.

Quote:
The Left whines about just military action.

Before your definition was anyone who 'whines' about military action

Allow me to quote myself:

I classify "The Left" with all whining that comes from military action, along with bleating about the "needs" of the "common man".

That appears to include you fully.

By the way, my definition of the left, it's the right one.

Okay. Time to go to a neutral source:

In politics, left-wing, political left, leftist and the Left are terms used to describe a number of positions and ideologies. They are most commonly used to refer to support for changing traditional social orders or for creating a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and privilege. Nevertheless the terms have been used for different things in different countries.

Quote:
Yeah. There's one.

And I repeat "one".

I'm sure there are many more whose names aren't in mainstream media.

Yeah. I'm sure that you're sure.

You just also happen to be unsupported by fact.

[Kman]

The Conservative agenda is to eat little babies in the glow of the moonlight.

[PBVBROOK]

^^

QFT

And you forgot throwing gay people down the well.

[Huntster]

And you forgot throwing gay people down the well.

Only the ones who are making a scene and rocking the social boat.

[Zerogouki]

I love how Huntster completely owns in this thread, and all you guys can say is "throwing gay people down the well"

Liberal logic at its best

[PBVBROOK]

^^

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
Bertrand Russell

[grassroots1]

1) I don't know you from Adam

2) If so, what's this: "The Bush administration clearly took advantage of 9/11 to accomplish things that would benefit their corporate connects and them personally, not the American people."

1) Well... I remember you.

2) Whatever it is, it's not partisan. I don't support, in any way, shape, or form, the Democratic Party.

Yeah. Right.

Show me some of your criticism of the "system" with Obama named.

Um... no.

This shows that there were a number of justifications, and that Congress also accepted the same faulty intelligence that the administration did (not to mention Blair and the UK Parliament).

A number of pretexts, you mean. I don't see anything about oil in that list, but it certainly was a reason.

I know the system inside and out, and I'm telling you that none of those corporations needed Afghanistan to make money.

Needed? Maybe not, but they sure as hell wanted it. And you didn't mention Iraq.

Excuse me, but it is the opinion of many people (in the U.S. and abroad) that 9/11 and terrorism are just reasons for the U.S. to go to war. Nearly 3,000 people died in that single terrorist event. That closely approaches the devastation wreaked by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Afghanistan (the Taliban) was given options that it could have used to avoid war and they chose not to exercise them.

It is not my opinion.

9/11 and terrorism weren't "something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object". They were the real, fucking tamale.

They were used for other, selfish purposes.

They damned sure don't like your redistribution schemes, and I don't blame them.

I don't think they're fuckers. And I can see why they don't like it, but they're misguided and short-sighted.

Ah, backed off of "the people, united, forcing rich bureaucrats and businessmen to share the wealth?" Now it's just "taxation is a necessity in society"?

You've already painted yourself. You're busted, Socialist. "Sharing the wealth" is redistribution, not necessary taxation.

No, I'm merely testing the waters. Apparently you don't have a problem with some limited form of taxation, so why are you so against a mere foundation? Government provided health care, education, shelter, and sustenance.

Okay. Time to go to a neutral source:

Quote:
In politics, left-wing, political left, leftist and the Left are terms used to describe a number of positions and ideologies. They are most commonly used to refer to support for changing traditional social orders or for creating a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and privilege. Nevertheless the terms have been used for different things in different countries.

Your definition of the Left is one no one uses. Good luck with it. And I'm afraid you're the one who's making the unsupported claim that Ron Paul is the only right-wing (debateable) individual against the Iraq War. That's absolutely silly.

[Huntster]

Quote:
1) I don't know you from Adam.

1) Well... I remember you.

Sorry. I still don't know you from Adam.

Quote:
By now you should have seen enough of me to know that I don't participate in that 'partisan bush-bashing.'

If so, what's this: "The Bush administration clearly took advantage of 9/11 to accomplish things that would benefit their corporate connects and them personally, not the American people."

Any of my complaints toward George Bush generally come with a general denunciation of the system we're involved with right now, whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican.

Yeah. Right.

Show me some of your criticism of the "system" with Obama named.

Um... no.

So much for "no partisan bush-bashing"......................

Quote:
This shows that there were a number of justifications, and that Congress also accepted the same faulty intelligence that the administration did (not to mention Blair and the UK Parliament).

A number of pretexts, you mean. I don't see anything about oil in that list, but it certainly was a reason.

Your evidence, please.

Quote:
I know the system inside and out, and I'm telling you that none of those corporations needed Afghanistan to make money.

Needed? Maybe not, but they sure as hell wanted it.

What the fuck does the United States and the United Kingdom "want" with that toilet known as Afghanistan?

And you didn't mention Iraq.

What the fuck does the United States and the United Kingdom "want" with that toilet known as Iraq?

Oil?

So where the fuck is it?

Quote:
Excuse me, but it is the opinion of many people (in the U.S. and abroad) that 9/11 and terrorism are just reasons for the U.S. to go to war. Nearly 3,000 people died in that single terrorist event. That closely approaches the devastation wreaked by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Afghanistan (the Taliban) was given options that it could have used to avoid war and they chose not to exercise them.

It is not my opinion.

Yes. We can see that.

We can also see that your "opinion" is based on.....................well.....................just what the fuck is it based on?

(Not partisanship..............oh, no....................)

Quote:
9/11 and terrorism weren't "something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object". They were the real, fucking tamale.

They were used for other, selfish purposes.

Such as?

Quote:
Ah, backed off of "the people, united, forcing rich bureaucrats and businessmen to share the wealth?" Now it's just "taxation is a necessity in society"?

You've already painted yourself. You're busted, Socialist. "Sharing the wealth" is redistribution, not necessary taxation.

No, I'm merely testing the waters. Apparently you don't have a problem with some limited form of taxation, so why are you so against a mere foundation? Government provided health care, education, shelter, and sustenance.

Because government hasn't impressed me with the rest of the "foundation" they're continually fucking with: health care (that's right; they already run veterans health, indian health, and senior health), road construction, maintenance, and repair, Amtrak, and transportation in general, primary education, etc. I'm damned sure not interested in being forced to rely on government for food and shelter, too.

Quote:
Okay. Time to go to a neutral source:

Quote:
In politics, left-wing, political left, leftist and the Left are terms used to describe a number of positions and ideologies. They are most commonly used to refer to support for changing traditional social orders or for creating a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and privilege. Nevertheless the terms have been used for different things in different countries.

That's probably because one can never nail down just what a liberal/leftist wants. They blow with the fucking wind.

Your definition of the Left is one no one uses.

It works for me.

Good luck with it.

Thanks. I like it.

Quote:
There are some incredibly right-wing people who don't support the Iraq War. If you consider libertarianism right-wing, Ron Paul is an example.

Yeah. There's one.

And I repeat "one".

And I'm afraid you're the one who's making the unsupported claim that Ron Paul is the only right-wing (debateable) individual against the Iraq War. That's absolutely silly.

I didn't write that Ron Paul is the only right-wing individual against the Iraq War. I wrote that "there's one. And I repeat "one"" because that's the only one you offered after writing, "there are some incredibly right-wing people who don't support the Iraq War."

[Sephardi]

It is the preservation of our nation, our culture, our families, our way of life, our freedom, our traditions, and our language.

This. I might use this in my sig if Dan lets it.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Even though they are all social constructs that will have at one point been progressive, and in many cases, liberal?

[Potemkin]

Even though they are all social constructs that will have at one point been progressive, and in many cases, liberal?

Heresy! The American Way of Life (TM) has always existed and always will exist! What are you, some kind of pinko commie? *peers at TheClockworkRat closely*

[The Clockwork Rat]

Right, just like Scottish nationalism wasn't invented by the English?

[NoRapture]

I love how Huntster completely owns in this thread...

I love how not one so-called conservative here has the brains, where-with-all, or motivation to answer the very simple question that was asked in the OP. What is the conservative agenda for America? What does conservatism as an ideology offer in the way of plan or direction that is different from liberalism? If you can't even answer that then what's the point of calling yourself anything at all?

[DanDaMan]

I love how not one so-called conservative here has the brains, where-with-all, or motivation to answer the very simple question that was asked in the OP. What is the conservative agenda for America?

More individual liberty.

What does conservatism as an ideology offer in the way of plan or direction that is different from liberalism?

Freedoms from the tyrrany of the state.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Nice thread resurrection.

What does conservatism as an ideology offer in the way of plan or direction that is different from liberalism?

American Conservatism is liberalism. It has attempted to disassociate itself with the modern liberal movement by advocating things of another generation's liberal movement. It is, however, based on the same basic cult of individualism.