Let me get this straight

[Federal Farmer]

Of all of the above terms, the only one that has an actual meaning is the term "neo con", or "neoconservative."

It doesn't describe actual conservatives, of course, any more than the term "neo liberal" describes liberals.

Then please explain for the class why Libtards insist on attempting to paint any and all Republicans/Conservatives with that brush?

And, your use of the term "Libtard" is getting a little old, so I'll give the definition I've gleaned from your posts:

Libtard: n,

1. Anyone who disagrees with Federal Farmer's somewhat narrow view of politics.
2. Any Democrat

Then you obviously haven't been paying very much attention, because I've gone to great lengths, in several posts, to accurately define the term so that there would be no misunderstandings. Your lack of comprehension is not my concern.

 

[lipmonkey]

I don't make "excuses", that's another Liberal trait, I was merely acknowledging that a possible reason that they fail to see it is from a lack of experience.

"That's because" was an explanation justifiying the action, which is an excuse for why it takes place.

Of course it is, just like "Bushbot" and "Repugnican" and "Neo-Con" and all of the other terms of endearment that you Libtards use to describe Republicans/Conservatives are.

I don't use the term "Bushbot" or "Repugnican" so that doesn't apply to me. I do refer to some Republicans as Neo-Cons because it is a political philosophy.

you're obviously a Libtard because you haven't shown the slightest propensity for utilizing logic or reason. You're all about "emotions" and how people "feel". Typical Libtard tripe.

I'm an Independent with no party affiliation, and I'm not registered with a party, not a liptard, so I don't buy into your stuck on stupid comments of associating me with anyone. I simply "calls em like I sees em.

I see you like to dwell in immature political debate, which happens to be the simplest form of communication on a political discussion forum. It's also the easiest to debate.

 

[Federal Farmer]

"That's because" was an explanation justifiying the action, which is an excuse for why it takes place.

Oh, so YOU'RE the final arbiter of what I mean? That would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

I'm an Independent with no party affiliation, and I'm not registered with a party, not a liptard, so I don't buy into your stuck on stupid comments of associating me with anyone. I simply "calls em like I sees em.

Then you "sees em" through the lens of a Libtard.

I see you like to dwell in immature political debate, which happens to be the simplest form of communication on a political discussion forum. It's also the easiest to debate.

You're not even CLOSE to being able to successfully debate me, but if you're feeling froggy, JUMP! Do you prefer Lincoln-Douglas, or modified NDT? One of us can pick the topic, and the other can decide which side they'll take, I'll even be a nice guy and let you decide which one you want to pick!

 

[lipmonkey]

You're not even CLOSE to being able to successfully debate me, but if you're feeling froggy, JUMP!

Other than your name calling and insulting posters you don't rely on facts to prove your point. I don't see a need to jump anywhere yet.

Do you prefer Lincoln-Douglas, or modified NDT? One of us can pick the topic, and the other can decide which side they'll take, I'll even be a nice guy and let you decide which one you want to pick!

Neither really. Your type of discussion is quite boring actually. I'll chose to discuss issues with the posters who don't seem as hostile as you are. I'll pick the points I want to debate thank you. I can see that you are trying to intimidate some of the other posters instead of debate them. You're probably the only person impressed by your style. I call it easy pickings.

Find someone else to dazzle with bs.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Other than your name calling and insulting posters you don't rely on facts to prove your point. I don't see a need to jump anywhere yet.

I consistantly use facts, evidence, and logic to prove my point, which is why liberals don't like me, they rely on emotion and feelings, and ignore facts, evidence, and logic.

Neither really. Your type of discussion is quite boring actually. I'll chose to discuss issues with the posters who don't seem as hostile as you are. I'll pick the points I want to debate thank you. I can see that you are trying to intimidate some of the other posters instead of debate them. You're probably the only person impressed by your style. I call it easy pickings.

Find someone else to dazzle with bs.

Why not just admit that you're not familiar with formal debate, instead of dragging out that silly strawman? Lincoln-Douglas and modified NDT debate have a set format, and very stringent rules that mandate that ONLY facts and evidence are allowed, now do you want to debate something, or are you going to keep on crawfishing?

Tell ya what, I'll make it REALLY easy for you, let's discuss the FLDS situation down in Texas. You decide if you want to debate in favor of the FLDS position, or if you want to debate in favor of the position of the government, as to whether or not they have the right to marry multiple wives, and as young as they wish, and their religion allows.

Too hot a topic for you? How about gay marriage? Take which ever side you want.

Let's find out who's "easy pickings".

 

[lipmonkey]

I consistantly use facts, evidence, and logic to prove my point, which is why liberals don't like me, they rely on emotion and feelings, and ignore facts, evidence, and logic.

You forgot to mention the persistent name calling, and the stereotyping of people who don't agree with you. I consider that to be the trademark of an online bully.

Why not just admit that you're not familiar with formal debate, instead of dragging out that silly strawman? Lincoln-Douglas and modified NDT debate have a set format, and very stringent rules that mandate that ONLY facts and evidence are allowed, now do you want to debate something, or are you going to keep on crawfishing?

You seemed to have overlooked my previous point that I don't care to debate you in any format because, despite any style of format you debate in, it will amount to insults and name calling, which I have no interest in.

Tell ya what, I'll make it REALLY easy for you,

You made it easy for me the first time you called me a libtard. You played your trump card too soon.

Too hot a topic for you?

Nah, not really. I'll pick what topics I find interesting thank you. For some reason you can't grasp the concept of someone wanting to discuss topics without all the name calling you provided earlier, which is basically why I am refusing your offer. If it's all the same to you I'll interact with members here who don't call me names and insult me for no apparent reason.

 

[PLC1]

Then please explain for the class why Libtards insist on attempting to paint any and all Republicans/Conservatives with that brush?

I don't think that they do. If you use the term "libtard" the way I've defined it, the way your posts make abundantly clear that you also define it, then I doubt whether you can find more than one or two examples of anyone calling all Republicans or all conservatives (you don't think they are the same, do you?) "NeoCons".

And, since virtually all of the posters on this forum are "libtards", meaning that they don't agree with your rather narrow point of view, then you shouldn't have any problem finding abundant examples of the misuse of the term "NeoCon" on this forum. I'll be waiting to see your response.

Then you obviously haven't been paying very much attention, because I've gone to great lengths, in several posts, to accurately define the term so that there would be no misunderstandings. Your lack of comprehension is not my concern.

Oh, I've been paying attention, and I'm sure I've given the definition as you are using the term.

 

[Federal Farmer]

You forgot to mention the persistent name calling, and the stereotyping of people who don't agree with you. I consider that to be the trademark of an online bully.

That's what I thought you'd say.

You seemed to have overlooked my previous point that I don't care to debate you in any format because, despite any style of format you debate in, it will amount to insults and name calling, which I have no interest in.

Then as I said before, you simply aren't familiar with the rules of formal debate, because they PRECLUDE anything of the kind. Tell ya what, I'll even add another layer of "safety" for you to protect your delicate sensibilities from the big bad boogey man, rather than directly posting, why don't we see about having the "debate" in a "closed" thread, and we'll submit our posts to a Moderator who will review them for any "insults" or "name calling", and THEY can make the actual post?

You made it easy for me the first time you called me a libtard. You played your trump card too soon.

So you admit that you've been trumped. Thank you.

Nah, not really. I'll pick what topics I find interesting thank you.

As I said before, I'll let you have first pick of the topic! If it's something that I have any interest in, and that can actually be debated on the basis of facts rather than opinon, we can go ahead, if it's not, then I'll simply ask you to pick another. What could be any more fair than that?

For some reason you can't grasp the concept of someone wanting to discuss topics without all the name calling you provided earlier, which is basically why I am refusing your offer. If it's all the same to you I'll interact with members here who don't call me names and insult me for no apparent reason.

The reason was quite apparant, and very much deserved. You have made it quite clear since in your previous posts that you are in fact, contrary to your protestations of being non-aligned, a VERY liberal leaning individual, so much so that you have EARNED the distinction of being what I refer to as a Libtard. You don't bother looking for facts and evidence, you simply swill the DNC mixed Kool-Aide and regurgitate the latest Liberal line right on cue.

What you fail to comprehend is that when it comes to most things, contrary to the secular progressive mindset of most young people today, are in fact very "black and white" with just a small sliver of gray in the middle, and the original post by Poopeye is nothing but another in a long line of half-truths and intentional misrepresentation of the facts used in order to claim some political "gotcha" points. The fact that you were so willing to even acknowledge the post as having ANY merit whatsoever as anything other than rediculous only provides further proof that you are what I have surmised, just another Liberal hack.

 

[Federal Farmer]

I don't think that they do.

Then you don't get out much.

If you use the term "libtard" the way I've defined it, <snip>

As I have explained, repeatedly, I do NOT use it the way that you've defined it. As I am the one that 'coined' the term MANY years ago, I am the one that get's to define it, not you, or are you the Red Queen?

And, since virtually all of the posters on this forum are "libtards", meaning that they don't agree with your rather narrow point of view, then you shouldn't have any problem finding abundant examples of the misuse of the term "NeoCon" on this forum. I'll be waiting to see your response.

And yet another gross misrepresentation of the truth. There are actually very few "Libtards" on the forum. Dawkinsrocks IS a "Libtard" while Jeugenen is not, he's just plain NUTS! Libsmasher is hardly a "Libtard", in fact he's one of the ones that make rational Conservatives look BAD. You aren't a true "Libtard" (although sometimes you do try VERY hard), you're just obnoxious, and can't seem to get the fence post out of your butt and decide WHERE you stand, but Sihouette, top gun, Truth-Bringer, Shadow, and Popeye ARE most definately "Libtards".

HERE HERE BigRob nailed it here, so I guess I'm NOT the only one. HERE HERE HERE HERE and HERE

Shall I continue, there were 7 PAGES of hits for the word "neocon" when I used the search feature. In fact, you and vyo had a very nice discussion about "Bushistas" and "neocons" in THIS thread this past December. Seems that "Bushistas" was one of your favorite invectives a while back for anyone on the Republican side who disagreed with you. Hypocritical much? That was a rhetorical question.

Oh, I've been paying attention, and I'm sure I've given the definition as you are using the term.

Well, if you've been "paying attention", then your train of thought is an awfully short one.

 

[PLC1]

As I have explained, repeatedly, I do NOT use it the way that you've defined it. As I am the one that 'coined' the term MANY years ago, I am the one that get's to define it, not you, or are you the Red Queen?

I'm aware that you have repeated that statement many times. I still don't believe it.
In fact, I just looked up the term, and found this:

Libtards

The plural form of libtard. As repetitive as it sounds, it stands for "liberal retards."

Libtards want to live in a fantasy world (in which life is the way that they WISH IT WAS) as opposed to dealing with life the way it actually is.

And yet another gross misrepresentation of the truth. There are actually very few "Libtards" on the forum. Dawkinsrocks IS a "Libtard" while Jeugenen is not, he's just plain NUTS! Libsmasher is hardly a "Libtard", in fact he's one of the ones that make rational Conservatives look BAD. You aren't a true "Libtard" (although sometimes you do try VERY hard), you're just obnoxious, and can't seem to get the fence post out of your butt and decide WHERE you stand, but Sihouette, top gun, Truth-Bringer, Shadow, and Popeye ARE most definately "Libtards".

I see. So, perhaps I have misinterpreted the actual meaning of the term, as I was simply relying on interpreting your use of the term. As we can see above, it is, just as I suspected, a combination of the terms "liberal" and "retard", and applies to those who live in a fantasy world.

I'm not sure just what the definition of "liberal" is on this forum. I did, in fact, once post a thread on the subject, and concluded that there is no generally agreed on definition to the term.

Therefore, I'm beginning to suspect that you, yourself, are a libtard, as you do seem to live in a fantasy world, and since no one is sure just what a liberal is anyway. I haven't come to that conclusion for sure, as yet, but I'm beginning to suspect that may be so.

I'm also beginning to suspect that you have no real argument, as you engage in the classic strategy of those devoid of logic, fact, and reason, to wit:

You engage in personal insults that have nothing to do with the argument at hand, thus exposing a lack of real argument, and,

You categorize people into neat little pigeonholes, lumping them under questionable labels.

I think that's why you can't see just where I stand. You see, I am an individual. I am not a conservative, or a liberal, but an independent who leans strongly toward libertarianism.

Oh, yes, and there is a firm and understandable definition for the term "Bushista". It is anyone who supports the current president, pure and simple. It is neither a pejorative, nor an invective, but a clear, concise, political term. I didn't even coin it, nor did I invent it, but simply lifted it from the original Spanish.
[/QUOTE]

Now to research your claim about the term "neoconservative". If I have been misusing it, then I apologize and will never, ever do so again. I promise.

 

[PLC1]

HERE HERE BigRob nailed it here, so I guess I'm NOT the only one. HERE HERE HERE HERE and HERE

Here are the quotes you cited. They are all posts made by Shadow:

Shadow: Might not be the sole benefit of Israel, but Israel certainly factors into the BUSH-US (aka neocon)motives.

And, no; there won't be a war with Russia; that's all just more handwringing speculation from liberal pundits. It's pure rubbish. The Bush administration will do what US policymakers always do when faced with a well-armed adversary; thrust their sabers into the air and rattle them ferociously while beating a hasty retreat. "Cut and run" is not a neocon bullet-point; it's a summary of 60 years of foreign policy.

absolutely !! They have a lot more credibility & awareness than the delusional , warmongering neo cons who live in the world of human slaughter, Torture, theft , greed ,but also denial

takes so LITTLE to amuse those pea brain neo con minds. No wonder the rest of the world "percieves" them as intellectually challenged.

One can only pity the poor sods. They "know not what they do".


HOw sad that they give the rest of the US population a bad name.

Once again, a neo con tries to derail a topic that they don't want to address because it represents their failure. and destruction.

by Paul Craig Roberts
The success of the Bush Regime's propaganda, lies, and deception with gullible and inattentive Americans since 9/11 has made it difficult for intelligent, aware people to be optimistic about the future of the United States. For almost 8 years the US media has served as Ministry of Propaganda for a war criminal regime. Americans incapable of thinking for themselves, reading between the lines, or accessing foreign media on the Internet have been brainwashed.

As the Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, said, it is easy to deceive a people. You just tell them they have been attacked and wave the flag.

It certainly worked with Americans.



The gullibility and unconcern of the American people has had many victims. There are 1.25 million dead Iraqis. There are 4 million displaced Iraqis. No one knows how many are maimed and orphaned.

Iraq is in ruins, its infrastructure destroyed by American bombs, missiles, and helicopter gunships.

We do not know the death toll in Afghanistan, but even the American puppet regime protests the repeated killings of women and children by US and NATO troops.

We don't know what the death toll would be in Iran if Darth Cheney and the neocons succeed in their plot with Israel to bomb Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons.

America will never recover from the shame and dishonor heaped upon her by the neoconned Bush Regime.

The success of the neocon propaganda has been so great that the opposition party has not lifted a finger to rein in the Bush Regime's criminal actions. Even Obama, who promises "change" is too intimidated by the neocon's success in brainwashing the American population to do what his supporters hoped he would do and lead us out of the shame in which the neoconned Bush Regime has imprisoned us.


The neoconned Republican response to the Russian failure to follow the script and to be intimidated by the "unipower" was so imbecilic that it shattered the brainwashing to which Americans had succumbed.

McCain declared: "In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations." Imagine the laughs Jon Stewart will get out of this on the Daily Show. In the early years of the 21st century the United States has already invaded two countries and has been beating the drums for attacking a third. President Bush, the chief invader of the 21st century, echoed McCain's claim that nations don't invade other nations.

This dissonant claim shocked even brainwashed Americans, as readers' emails reveal. If in the 21st century countries don't invade other countries, what is Bush doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what are the naval armadas and propaganda arrayed against Iran about?

Have two of the worst warmongers of modern times – Bush and McCain – called off the US/Israeli attack on Iran? If McCain is elected president, is he going to pull US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan as "nations don't invade other nations," or is President Bush going to beat him to it?

We all know the answer.

The two stooges are astonished that the Americans have taught hegemony to Russians, who were previously operating, naively perhaps, on the basis of good will.

Suddenly the Western Europeans have realized that being allied with the United States is like holding a tiger by the tail. No European country wants to be hurled into war with Russia. Germany, France, and Italy must be thanking God they blocked Georgia's membership in NATO.

The Ukraine, where a sick nationalism has taken hold funded by the neocon National Endowment for Democracy, will be the next conflict between American pretensions and Russia. Russia is being taught by the neocons that freeing the constituent parts of its empire has not resulted in their independence but in their absorption into the American Empire.

Unless enough Americans can overcome their brainwashed state and the rigged Diebold voting machines, turn out the imbecilic Republicans and hold the neoconservatives accountable for their crimes against humanity, a crazed neocon US government will provoke nuclear war with Russia.

The neoconservatives represent the greatest danger ever faced by the United States and the world. Humanity has no greater enemy.

Interesting. Shadow does, indeed, have a poor opinion of neoconservatives.

He may be using the term as a pejorative (how about it, Shadow, am I wrong about that?), but he is not necessarily misusing the term, nor applying it to actual conservatives. At one point, he applies it to "liberal pundits".

The real meaning of the term is a person who buys in to the philosophy of the PNAC. As such, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are high profile neocons, which, once again, doesn't make them conservatives. Bush himself may not actually be a neocon, but he does have a history of listening to neocons, as defined above, which is a big factor in the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Now, you may think that there are a huge number of "libtards" out there calling conservatives "neocons", but you haven't made your point.

As for my own use of the term, I found this:

The term "neoconservative" refers to those who believe in the conclusions of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which called for a strengthening of the American hegemony around the world by force of arms. NeoConservatives are the most likely supporters of the invasion of Iraq and the continuation of American presence there.

NeoConservatives are not conservatives, new or otherwise, any more than neoliberals are new liberals. The one is a philosophy quite independent of classic conservatism (fiscal responsibility, limited government) while the other is not really related to liberalism (strong central government, social programs, income redistribution).

Bush is not a neoconservative, but many of his top advisers at the time of the invasion of Iraq are: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney are among them.

and this:

Yes, I might have defined neocon, which is to say that new conservatives are the same as old liberals, only with the twist that they like to mess around in the affairs of foreign nations.

Both of which are explanations of the term.

So no, I don't use the term Neoconservative to refer to conservatives, nor does Shadow.

Do you want to concede the point, or try again?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Neocon - Someone who talks about kickin ass all the time from the comfort of their armchair thousands of miles away from ass kickin or the possibility of retaliation.

AKA bullies, cowards, small-dicked rancorous mid-life crisis wannabe men (including the women).

 

[Bunz]

OK Folks...we need to keep this thread on topic or it will be closed. This has morphed into a childish bout of trying to justify calling each other immature names for pointless purposes.

 

[Andy]

So this is your excuse for why Republicans have a double standard ? Lack of experience?

The things brought up in the post... I don't ever remember saying, nor hearing. So the supposed 'double standard' that you have attributed to Republicans, is simple a fictional strawman arguement. You invented stuff you claim others said, and are now attacking them for the thing you made up.

The only person I have ever seen bring up race or Obama's name, is Obama himself. If anyone is being hypocritical, it's those on the left inventing false issues to attack.

So calling someone who doesn't agree with you a libtard is an example of diversity? Sort of sounds like you aren't in favor of diversity to me.

What do you mean "according to y'all" ? I don't recall mentioning I had a party affiliation.

He might have just assumed due to the classic broad brush prejudice statement against all Republicans. Typically that level of arrogance goes hand in had with the Liberal/Democrat persuasion. But you are correct, you didn't claim to be a specific party, you just mass slandered the entire opposing party. I don't know how he could have mistaken that....

I'm a firm believer that if Liberals had any brains, they'd be Conservatives. I know this to be true because when I was younger and plain stupid, and did not think about any issues at all, I was a dyed in the wool Liberal. I was anti-gun, anti-death penalty, anti-big corporation, pro-environment and so on.

Then one day I did something amazing, I actually researched an issue... and started thinking for myself. When I did I discovered I was on the wrong side, and in the course of about 2 years, I changed nearly every view from Liberal to Conservative simply by thinking, and using my brain, and researching topics myself instead of being spoon fed by liberal idiots. I can say that because I was a liberal idiot. Now I'm informed and think for myself, so I'll never be a "libtard" again.

 

[Andy]

Neocon - Someone who talks about kickin ass all the time from the comfort of their armchair thousands of miles away from ass kickin or the possibility of retaliation.

AKA bullies, cowards, small-dicked rancorous mid-life crisis wannabe men (including the women).

I feel bad that you are constantly ignored (even if rightfully so). So I just wanted to respond to your waste of characters that you call a post. There, I feel better now. I'll go back to ignoring these pathetic excuses of server hard drive space, and responding to "thought-out" and substantive posts. Be well.