• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama sends former officials to Thatcher funeral

j-mac said:
So no link to your summation of Thatcher? I figured as much....
Click to expand...
So no acknowledgement of your hypocrisy.....or a counter of my argument?

Figured as much.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I already have, I asked for you or anyone interested to show I was incorrect. It goes beyond prefix analysis.
Click to expand...

You made the claim, you supply the evidence to support your claim.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Prove me wrong.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I specifically applied it to Kristol and Thatcher, show how that is incorrect.

"William Kristol (born December 23, 1952) is an American neoconservative political analyst and commentator."

"The election of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minster in 1979 in the United Kingdom brought new imputus to neoconservative ideas on both sides of the 'pond', with Thatcher representing the triumph of key 'neoconservative' ideas not only over the 'socialist' ideals of the European post-war consensus, built around union representation and the Welfare State - but over traditional 'British conservatism' too. So-called Reagonomics and Thatcherism were two names for the same neoconservative policy."
Click to expand...

Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't make for very effective debate. Kristol is absolutely a neoconservative. Thatcher cannot be a neoconservative. The term "neoconservative" describes a strain of conservative thought derived from evolved liberal and radical intellectuals in the U.S. (and/or their children, see David Horowitz). Because many of those intellectuals were/are Jewish, neoconservatism is sometimes mistaken for a Jewish phenomenon, and anti-neoconservatism sometimes seems antisemitic. Regardless, as a Brit Margaret Thatcher could not, by definition, be a neoconservative.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't make for very effective debate. Kristol is absolutely a neoconservative. Thatcher cannot be a neoconservative. The term "neoconservative" describes a strain of conservative thought derived from evolved liberal and radical intellectuals in the U.S. (and/or their children, see David Horowitz). Because many of those intellectuals were/are Jewish, neoconservatism is sometimes mistaken for a Jewish phenomenon, and anti-neoconservatism sometimes seems antisemitic. Regardless, as a Brit Margaret Thatcher could not, by definition, be a neoconservative.:cool:
Click to expand...

My guess is that he got his quotes from some far left site, hence the language "so called" used in describing Reaganomics....Either way until he complies with the rules and posts the site he got that drivel from, he shouldn't be allowed to move on with his point.
 
j-mac said:
My guess is that he got his quotes from some far left site, hence the language "so called" used in describing Reaganomics....Either way until he complies with the rules and posts the site he got that drivel from, he shouldn't be allowed to move on with his point.
Click to expand...

I have trouble getting links to consistently post properly, so I cut slack on that score. I agree with your assessment of his sourcing.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
I have trouble getting links to consistently post properly, so I cut slack on that score. I agree with your assessment of his sourcing.:cool:
Click to expand...

Easy peasy....Just copy, and paste the url and viola!
 
Jack Hays said:
Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't make for very effective debate. Kristol is absolutely a neoconservative. Thatcher cannot be a neoconservative. The term "neoconservative" describes a strain of conservative thought derived from evolved liberal and radical intellectuals in the U.S. (and/or their children, see David Horowitz). Because many of those intellectuals were/are Jewish, neoconservatism is sometimes mistaken for a Jewish phenomenon, and anti-neoconservatism sometimes seems antisemitic. Regardless, as a Brit Margaret Thatcher could not, by definition, be a neoconservative.:cool:
Click to expand...
So your argument is that there cannot be Brit neocons?

And I'm ignorant!?

LOL.

PS...Bill Kristol was not a liberal....ever.

So sorry.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So your argument is that there cannot be Brit neocons?

And I'm ignorant!?

LOL.

PS...Bill Kristol was not a liberal....ever.

So sorry.
Click to expand...


Ok, so I found the link you are using for your laughable assertion that Reagan and Thatcher were "Neo-cons"... At least not in the manner that liberals use the term today....It was from British neoconservatives - Philosophical Investigations

As left as that organization is, you conveniently left out the contextual opening sentence of the paragraph that you posted..."British Neoconservatism is very different from its US counterpart, but shares a rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s."

Now I had to ask myself why you would do that? Then I figured it out. It wasn't because you were on to some intellectual point about Reagan, or Thatcher. It wasn't because of anything other than laziness. You found the first leftist site you agreed with, and cherry picked something that you could twist, and mold, but the only way you can do that is to first eliminate the context of British neoconservatism being vastly different from that of America.

That's a hack move dude.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So your argument is that there cannot be Brit neocons?

And I'm ignorant!?

LOL.

PS...Bill Kristol was not a liberal....ever.

So sorry.
Click to expand...


Ok, so I found the link you are using for your laughable assertion that Reagan and Thatcher were "Neo-cons"... At least not in the manner that liberals use the term today....It was from British neoconservatives - Philosophical Investigations

As left as that organization is, you conveniently left out the contextual opening sentence of the paragraph that you posted..."British Neoconservatism is very different from its US counterpart, but shares a rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s."

Now I had to ask myself why you would do that? Then I figured it out. It wasn't because you were on to some intellectual point about Reagan, or Thatcher. It wasn't because of anything other than laziness. You found the first leftist site you agreed with, and cherry picked something that you could twist, and mold, but the only way you can do that is to first eliminate the context of British neoconservatism being vastly different from that of America.

That's a hack move dude.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So your argument is that there cannot be Brit neocons?

And I'm ignorant!?

LOL.

PS...Bill Kristol was not a liberal....ever.

So sorry.
Click to expand...

You are correct on both counts: there cannot be Brit neocons and you are (apparently) ignorant.

Kristol was indeed never a liberal, but his father, Irving Kristol, was once quite the lefty. As I said, neocons are evolved lefties or their children.

Learn first. Then post.:cool:
 
Carleen said:
There was no snub. A delegation was sent.
Click to expand...

Yes, a delegation of former officials rather than the de rigueur ones. Hence the discussion. Was this yet another faux pas, or was it a deliberate snub?
 
Jack Hays said:
You are correct on both counts: there cannot be Brit neocons and you are (apparently) ignorant.
Click to expand...
This is beyond stupid, the poli/sci philosophy of neoconservatism is not bound by geographic or cultural locations, anyone can adopt a neoconservative mindset.

Niall Ferguson is going to be very disappointed to read this.

Kristol was indeed never a liberal, but his father, Irving Kristol, was once quite the lefty. As I said, neocons are evolved lefties or their children.
Click to expand...
FFS, the example was Bill Krisol....which blows your previous definition out of the water....but I suppose...... LOL....that now it is a matter of hereditary/genetics! The "strain" of neoconsevatism is genetically transferred! In the womb the metamorphosis from liberal to neocon happens and one is born fully formed!

FFS, and there are people here who consider you a Very Serious Person.

Learn first. Then post.:cool:
Click to expand...
I think you missed a lot of days, there are a lot of gaps.

Here is some light reading....

The British neoconservatives
 
nota bene said:
Yes, a delegation of former officials rather than the de rigueur ones. Hence the discussion. Was this yet another faux pas, or was it a deliberate snub?
Click to expand...

I don't think it was a deliberate snub. She has been retired for quite a long time. Sending no one would have been a snub imo.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
This is beyond stupid, the poli/sci philosophy of neoconservatism is not bound by geographic or cultural locations, anyone can adopt a neoconservative mindset.

Niall Ferguson is going to be very disappointed to read this.

FFS, the example was Bill Krisol....which blows your previous definition out of the water....but I suppose...... LOL....that now it is a matter of hereditary/genetics! The "strain" of neoconsevatism is genetically transferred! In the womb the metamorphosis from liberal to neocon happens and one is born fully formed!

FFS, and there are people here who consider you a Very Serious Person.

I think you missed a lot of days, there are a lot of gaps.

Here is some light reading....

The British neoconservatives
Click to expand...

Please work on your reading comprehension. I wrote in my first post that the neoconservatives were former lefties or the children of former lefties. You need a memory span longer than fifteen minutes to play here. Because neoconservatism developed from a very small circle of mostly New York-based intellectuals, family ties were indeed significant. When you mock this you merely parade your ignorance.

Strictly speaking, the New Statesman is misusing the term "neoconservative" because it applies to a specific turn in American intellectual history. I will be charitable and grant that they are speaking only of ideas similar to those advanced by the neoconservatives. There cannot be a British neoconservative any more than there can be a British Gaullist.:roll:
 
The term "neoconservative" was popularized in the United States during 1973 by Socialist leader Michael Harrington, who used the term to define Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol, whose ideologies differed from Harrington's.[6]

The "neoconservative" label was used by Irving Kristol in his 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[7] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited the magazine Encounter.[8] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of the magazine Commentary from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was terming himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[9][10] During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the neoconservatives considered that liberalism had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about, " according to E. J. Dionne.[11]

The term neoconservative, which was used originally by a socialist to criticize the politics of Social Democrats, USA,[12] has since 1980 been used as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had become slightly more conservative[7][13]

The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush,[14][15] with particular emphasis on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.[16] The term neocon is often used as pejorative in this context.

Through the 1950s and early 1960s the future neoconservatives had endorsed the American Civil Rights Movement, racial integration, and Martin Luther King, Jr..[17] From the 1950s to the 1960s, there was general endorsement among liberals for military action to prevent a communist victory in Vietnam.[18]

Neoconservatism was initiated by the repudiation of coalition politics by the American New Left: Black Power, which denounced coalition-politics and racial integration as "selling out" and "Uncle Tomism" and which frequently generated anti-semitic slogans; "anti-anticommunism", which seemed indifferent to the fate of South Vietnam, and which during the late 1960s included substantial endorsement of Marxist Leninist politics; and the "new politics" of the New left, which considered students and alienated minorities as the main agents of social change (replacing the majority of the population and labor activists).[19] Irving Kristol edited the journal The Public Interest (1965–2005), featuring economists and political scientists, which emphasized ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences.[20]

Norman Podhoretz's magazine Commentary of the American Jewish Committee, originally a journal of liberalism, became a major publication for neoconservatives during the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeane Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative, albeit not a New Yorker.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom