revelarts
01-14-2012, 04:49 PM
<object height="360" width="640">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/45JSYIuTk0Y&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>
the summation of the video is this:
Rush Limbaugh and some other said that the CPAC win for Ron Paul a while back means that CPAC is REALLY more Libertarian than "conservative". The "Southern Avenger" points out that they are Full of Crap and goes through history of modern conservationism and those that have written about it and the Core Books about it(like the Conservative Intellectual movement in America (http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Intellectual-Movement-America-Since/dp/1933859121/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326577955&sr=1-2)) that show plainly that Conservatism is at it's roots and core Libertarian and that in the past often the 2 terms were used almost interchangeable and that the early leadership were full on libertarians. And that the Big Gov't big military views of the current main stream conservationism came from the Neo-cons whos roots are in socialism and Trotsky.
this is not in the vid but from the same creator
...“Neoconservative” certainly is a label that puts you in a box. The prefix alone invites curiosity (which is why neoconservatives don’t like it) and the term itself suggests that it represents something different from plain old conservatism (which is why neoconservatives really don’t like it). Neoconservative Max Boot outlined the ideology in 2002: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad … [The] agenda is known as ‘neoconservatism,’ though a more accurate term might be ‘hard Wilsonianism’ …” Of President Bush’s “hard Wilsonianism,” columnist George Will and National Review founder William F. Buckley said the following during an exchange in 2005:
WILL: Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?
BUCKLEY: It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative …
The fact that a significant part of Ron Paul’s campaign has been to constantly point out distinctions between how past conservative Republicans have approached foreign policy and the current neoconservative approach that dominates the GOP irritates those who’ve spent their careers trying to blur these distinctions. Wrote the neoconservatives’ intellectual godfather Irving Kristol in 2003:
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 …
Wasn't Wilson a democrat?
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/45JSYIuTk0Y&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>
the summation of the video is this:
Rush Limbaugh and some other said that the CPAC win for Ron Paul a while back means that CPAC is REALLY more Libertarian than "conservative". The "Southern Avenger" points out that they are Full of Crap and goes through history of modern conservationism and those that have written about it and the Core Books about it(like the Conservative Intellectual movement in America (http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Intellectual-Movement-America-Since/dp/1933859121/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326577955&sr=1-2)) that show plainly that Conservatism is at it's roots and core Libertarian and that in the past often the 2 terms were used almost interchangeable and that the early leadership were full on libertarians. And that the Big Gov't big military views of the current main stream conservationism came from the Neo-cons whos roots are in socialism and Trotsky.
this is not in the vid but from the same creator
...“Neoconservative” certainly is a label that puts you in a box. The prefix alone invites curiosity (which is why neoconservatives don’t like it) and the term itself suggests that it represents something different from plain old conservatism (which is why neoconservatives really don’t like it). Neoconservative Max Boot outlined the ideology in 2002: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad … [The] agenda is known as ‘neoconservatism,’ though a more accurate term might be ‘hard Wilsonianism’ …” Of President Bush’s “hard Wilsonianism,” columnist George Will and National Review founder William F. Buckley said the following during an exchange in 2005:
WILL: Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?
BUCKLEY: It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative …
The fact that a significant part of Ron Paul’s campaign has been to constantly point out distinctions between how past conservative Republicans have approached foreign policy and the current neoconservative approach that dominates the GOP irritates those who’ve spent their careers trying to blur these distinctions. Wrote the neoconservatives’ intellectual godfather Irving Kristol in 2003:
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 …
Wasn't Wilson a democrat?