What did you used to be?

[Libsmasher]

What did you use to be, or what group did you belong to, and have switched out of? My meaning will be clear hopefully when I answer for myself:

I used to be a liberal, and a libertarian:

1. Liberal in high school, because what I knew came from the lib media.
2. Conservative as an undergrad, started to get a clue.
3. Libertarian in grad school - left the party because I couldn't get any libertarians to deal with key issues., went back to conservatism.

I used to be a member of Amnesty International, then it became politicized.

I used to be a member of the methodist church, then quit because I couldn't be sure it was the truth - became an agnostic.

[Jarlaxle]

Never really a liberal, a bit to the right of say, Attilla the Hun for a while...libertarian since high school.

[Bunz]

Was a conservative in High School, through college, turned independant in 2003 after the Iraq fiasco. Always been a social liberal.
Now I will be hard pressed to vote for Greedy Opportunistic Party ever again.

[NO Obamanation]

In grade school I learned about politics. I watched Jimmy Carter campaign and get elected. When he brought in the 55 saves lives, the turn the lights off when you are not using them and told us how we should care for our planet by picking up trash. I was hooked.

When he lost his re election to Ronald Reagan, I hated Reagan. I couldn’t understand why they had to invent a whole new news (Nightline) just to talk bad about Jimmy and blame him for things he couldn’t help.

I learned from the news, my mother and the teachers at school what an evil excuse for a human being Ronald Reagan was. I spent my youth hating him. I was the one who wrote our year book for 1980 and I remember writing and being allowed by teachers to put in this line.

1980 was a year of news. John Lennon was assassinated, Mt St. Helens erupted and Ronald Reagan was shot. John Hinckley Jr. should have gotten life for being a bad aim.

I thought America was a pretty bad country. Evil rich white people were the cause of most of it. They oppressed the Blacks, oppressed the Mexicans, they would oppress their own mothers if they could and probably did.

I was easily left of Michael Moore. I was practically a communist. I even thought since everyone needed toilet paper; the government should provide it for free to all Americans. I actually thought that !! I was a big news junkie. I was watching the news at lunch at school the day Reagan was shot (7th grade). I announced it proudly to all my teachers. I saw the day CNN came on line and never needed a remote control after that.

In 1999 I went to Canada for a winter. I met a whole bunch of blame America first people. Some of the things they were blaming us for I had not known about and I did not know what to make of it. I had disagreed with a couple of the things and decided I would do some research. The same trip I met an old Hungarian man who had gone to Canada after WW2. He sang Ronald Reagan’s praises and talked about how great a Country America was. I told him what a demon Reagan and promised I would research and send him documentation on his evilness.

I couldn’t find the things I was looking for so I ended up having to read every speech Reagan ever gave. I had at that point only heard the media spin on his speeches, or my mother’s spins or the teacher’s spins. At best clips of his speeches on the news, but never the whole speech without the indoctrination along with it.

It took me about 6 months of reading everything I could get on him, comparing it with the things Carter said, and other presidents. Researching our history and the great things America had done. I did not notice the impact reading and researching all of this had on me. I do not think I changed over night but over a year’s time or so. The 2000 election came up and I was then where I am now. Both candidates suck, who could I vote for? I ended up voting for Pat Buchanan.

Today I believe my old hero Jimmy Carter should be stripped of his citizenship for treason, and we need to get back to the Ronald Reagan type of president.


Religiously I grew up with atheists though I have never been one. I can’t explain it but no matter how much fun my family has made of me for being weak and needing a crutch, that foundation has never been shaken though I have no idea who laid it. Though my spiritual ideas are not Christian, they have Christian over tones.

[top gun]

#1) Republican to start with because most of my family was back then.

#2) Lived through Nixon's Watergate and Reagan's Oliver North Iran Contra deal and said... what the heck is really going' on with this bunch and became a card carrying Independent.

#3) Was leaning toward Ross Perot but by the end of that race was a solid Bill Clinton supporter.

#4) And ever since Bill Clinton's first term even though I'm still technically a registered Independent I've steadily supported Democratic candidates.

and this is interesting... similar to Libsmasher (WHAT!:eek:) I was a member of the Lutheran Church but over time evolved to agnostic.

[Rhodri]

For president, I've always voted Republican. Not necessarily because of the party, more because the Dems have a difficult time picking a good candidate.

[ilikeboobs]

Liberal until about 20 because i thought the world revolved around me, then I grew up and realized that there were other things more important than me so I became conservative.

[palerider]

libertarian until I was about 25 because I though the world revolved around me and I hadn't learned enough to see the terrible paradox held within libertarian philosophy. I believe I was always bright enough to see through modern liberalism and there is really only one place for a thinking person to be anyway and that is in conservativism.

[mark964]

communist till 40...

[Pidgey]

I'm not sure, but I know this: I'm the only one that I want to wipe my own a$$. And I don't want to wipe your a$$, either. I'm not going to put my hands in your pocket and I fully expect you to do the right thing and keep your &%*$ hands outa' mine. If you get in the ditch, I'd rather help you of my own free will versus being forced to. If I get in the ditch then (unless I've become a vegetable in the process in which case I'd just as soon be planted), I will get out on my own. I've done it before and I expect I'll have to do it again.

Pidgey

[pocketfullofshells]

Republican, for Bush I, did not pay attention before that. Was pissed Bush I did not back the Shia uprising in Iraq after the Gulf war , thus leading to Saddam holding Power still and 150,000+ Dead Shia...And worried about Econ...

So I voted Perot, and was happy. But then Perot was just one guy, not really a party.

Republicans then decided that since Clinton won, that it was best to truly suckle up to the teat of the Christian Right, who got more and more Power, and then started the Witch Hunt against Clinton. I never liked Clinton, I hated NAFTA , But I hated what the Republicans Did even more. Clinton's Impeachment for getting Head...was the last straw, and I was done for good with the Republican party, and saw it as not just a misguided party that lost its way from its small government ideals....but as truly evil worthless party that needed to be stopped.

With my working class and pro Environmental views, but still old school Conservative Security and International Policy I went tot he Green party. It was never the best fit, but I did not want to work with the Dems. But I was to pro military, and use of Force for the Greens I am sure.

Bush II was 10 times worse then I thought, and I though very poorly of him from the start, but had hoped on good people around him to keep him in check. Needless to say I was willing to not only vote for the Dems , but work with them. I worked with Edwards for a bit, before he dropped out and I moved to Kerry. I really liked Edwards, and was able to deal with Kerry.

After the 04 Elections, I went strong with my current party, locally, the Independence party of MN who I had backed Jesse Ventura ( best Gov we have had) And have for the most part backed Dems for National office ( Joe Biden was my pick for Pres)

In 08, most likely its Obama for Pres. But I want to see his VP, and who McCain Takes. If McCain takes a bible thumper like Huckabee, I cant vote for McCain , even if I like him. I will let them Debate it out, and wait and see, but most likely would back Obama. Currently working as Delegate for the IP Party of MN though for local races , as while we have started to work on a National party, there is no Candidate yet. Bloomburg is a possible one if we run one.

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

What did you use to be, or what group did you belong to, and have switched out of? My meaning will be clear hopefully when I answer for myself:

I used to be a liberal, and a libertarian:

1. Liberal in high school, because what I knew came from the lib media.
2. Conservative as an undergrad, started to get a clue.
3. Libertarian in grad school - left the party because I couldn't get any libertarians to deal with key issues., went back to conservatism.

I used to be a member of Amnesty International, then it became politicized.

I used to be a member of the methodist church, then quit because I couldn't be sure it was the truth - became an agnostic.I used to be a liberal and still am. you may ask why

I looked around.
Libertarians I have observed seemed to lack the courage of true conviction. so that was a no go

Conservatives I have observed seemed to be more reactionary than progressive, though there are lots of progressive cons these days.
but...

I rarely joined groups as I was never a good follower. I am true to self.

being a liberal affords me the insight to see this life and the world as it truly is with all it's flaws and all it's beauty, and being a liberal allows me to do what I want to make it all a better place. this with no fear of bucking stale tradition and without the need to belong out of fear of violating some unwritten rules.

The actions and words of our founding fathers and the framers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution exemplify what liberalism is all about. The idea that others confuse and distort what liberalism is does not take anything away from it's inherent truths and it's ability to set mankind free from the chains of conservative fears and thoughts.

:cool:

[Libsmasher]

I used to be a liberal and still am. you may ask why

I looked around.
Libertarians I have observed seemed to lack the courage of true conviction. so that was a no go

Conservatives I have observed seemed to be more reactionary than progressive, though there are lots of progressive cons these days.
but...

I rarely joined groups as I was never a good follower. I am true to self.

being a liberal affords me the insight to see this life and the world as it truly is with all it's flaws and all it's beauty, and being a liberal allows me to do what I want to make it all a better place. this with no fear of bucking stale tradition and without the need to belong out of fear of violating some unwritten rules.

The actions and words of our founding fathers and the framers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution exemplify what liberalism is all about. The idea that others confuse and distort what liberalism is does not take anything away from it's inherent truths and it's ability to set mankind free from the chains of conservative fears and thoughts.

:cool:

You are a "classical liberal"?

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

You are a "classical liberal"?
a modern day liberal, who never allowed Ronald Reagan, or others to reframe who I am, what I stand for, and to question my patriotism without a fight.

:cool:

[GenSeneca]

Great thread topic! I'll have to break it up because I'm sucha wordsmith.

Religion

Never was very religious but I was curious about Christianinty. My mother allowed me the freedom to explore and attend church wherever I wanted, what harm could that do right? So I bounced around to different churches to see the differences between the faiths and between the people. I went to Catholic Mass, Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Evengelical and eventually came to one conclusion: I was Non-Religious.

I have a great deal of respect for those who follow Religion, who believe in God, Allah, Buddha and even John Smith but none of it was for me. I looked into other religions and came to the same conclusion, I'm not a believer.

Not to be confused for Atheism, or worse yet Anti-Theism, Non-Religious more closely resembles Agnosticism. I believe in "God" just not in the mystical religious sense of an omnipotent superbeing. To me: God is the sum of all energy in the universe, he represents the light. The devil is darkness and he is represented by the darkness - which is the emptiness that completely envelopes the known universe. The black holes and dark matter inside the universe, which can seemingly "Destroy" that which Einstein tells us cannot be destroyed, is the epic eternal battle between good and evil. Galaxies are created and destroyed in the wake of their battles that slowly criss cross the universe.

Politics

I began paying attention to politics around the 7th grade and naturally gravitated toward the Left, and sad to say, Micheal Moore was a particular Idol of mine :( . (They use such wonderful propaganda its hard to resist, at least until you begin watching more C-Span than M-TV)

In my early twenties, I went off to Oxford England where my G/F was attending college (University for you English blokes). Well she was a Communist originally from Germany - guess which side - and constantly teased me for being a Capitalist pig. I returned to America Sept 10, 2001.

On the morning of 9/11 I was driving to work. I arrived at work, my first day back from vacation mind you, to find the entire buildings staff huddled in front of the only TV located at the bar. The first plane impacted the first tower minutes before I got to work and minutes later... the second one hit right before our eyes.

That single event pushed my interest in politics to overdrive and I began gobbling up everything conspiracy theorists were pushing.

Well I soon felt out of place in my hometown because it was so Conservative, and you Liberals know how unbearable the mere presence of Conservatives can be... So in my mid twenties I moved to Austin TX and found a new group of friends eager to indoctrinate me. I read everything my new friends suggested, like Chomsky - who was sold to me as "prolific" and "ultra-Intelligent", and I quickly found myself espousing Socialist clap-trap.

Being one who likes to know his opponents to better defeat them, I began reading every piece of Conservative literature I could get my hands on. I started with the United States Constitution... Looking for weaknesses to exploit :eek: then moved onto the guide to our Constitution - The Federalist Papers. Before long I was reading AUH2O and Reagan speeches, all the while finding them frustratingly likable and accurate.

Ever heard of "Democracy in America" by Alexi de Tocqueville? As I read it, one particular oddity stood out... This was the road map to America's future. Depending on your viewpoint, you can use this incredible piece of literature to destroy or protect the American Republic - just by following its suggestions. It was eye opening to say the least and that book deserves credit for turning me toward Conservatism.

I began looking for facts and records instead of mantra's and emotions and found the Political Left to be following the Tocquevillian playbook - in the destruction direction. Sad to say, many Republicans have jumped on that very popular bandwagon as well.

Did you know Micheal Moore is a lier? :) Or that people like Chomsky and Conspiracy theorists are full of shat? :) I found out the hard way, by finding the truth on my own... Probably means more that way. And because I can no longer trust either party:

CaLiCo - Capitalist, Libertarian, Conservative. Free markets with limited government meant to maximize personal responsibility and freedom.

You're not really free if you are dependent on the state.

[Federal Farmer]

I've always been "conservative", in the Constitutional sense, and supported the most "conservative" candidate regardless of their political affiliation, which in Presidential elections has meant GOP since the DNC candidates have either not bothered to read the document, or were so befuddled by it's content that they simply ignore it.

At the local and state level, I've voted for nearly as many "democrats" as I have "republicans", because of their records and/or their stances on the issues, but never because of their party affiliation.

As it applies to the upcoming election, I have no choice but to vote for McCain, regardless of my objections to him, because the alternative is a politically inexperienced, died in the wool Marxist/Leninist, who would use his Presidential authority to further weaken our nation.

[Libsmasher]

a modern day liberal, who never allowed Ronald Reagan, or others to reframe who I am, what I stand for, and to question my patriotism without a fight.

:cool:

Now if only you can get your fellow libs to stop the reframing of the other side. Eg, non-libs are either "neocons", or the farrrrrrr ultra uber way way out there right wing. :D

[foggedinn]

Used to be a Methodist. Read the Old Testament when I was 8. The Word established my faith, the church exposed me to it.

Left the church for 40 years. God brought me back 3 years ago last April. Currently a member of the Baptist church. Not for doctrinal reasons, it just happens to be the closest mainstream protestant church.

Since reading the OT at 8, I've always believed that God's Word is the Law. Very hardcore about this. I actually consider calling any product of man the Law as an act of Idolatry.

The notion of separation of church and state is contra-biblical. Jesus as priest in the order of Melchizedic was head of the church. As Son of David, he was heriditary king of Israel. Biblicaly, there is a unity of church and state, not separation.

The last republican I voted for was Nixon in 72. I considered Watergate a political vendetta at the time and still do today. Virtually identical in form to the Lewinski brohaha the republicans did to Clinton.

Given the choices the two parties have given us in 08, God must be very angry with America. I will probably vote for McCain.

[Jarlaxle]

Hmm, if we're talking about religion...

Raised a Christian by my lunatic father, got out of that nightmare as fast as I could and with my sanity more or less intact. Now an atheist, who is truly frightened by Bible-thumpers.

My wife was raised by her father (who is not at all religious), now a devout Wiccan.

[all_arm]

1. Liberal in high school, because what I knew came from the lib media.

i have to say i'm not sure where the liberal media myth originated. as a liberal, and knowing lots of other liberals, we all think the media is doing a piss-poor job.

for the most part, big media is about MONEY, not ideology. CORPORATIONS control the media, not liberals.


Liberal until about 20 because i thought the world revolved around me, then I grew up and realized that there were other things more important than me so I became conservative.

MAJOR LOLZ.

please tell me how liberalism is more focused on the exclusionary promotion of the individual than conservatism.

liberalism: let's help everyone (through education, social welfare, etc.)

conservatism: i'm looking out for ME (anti-federally funded education and social welfare, believe the market and one's abilities working within that system should be the basis for not only success, but also acquisition of necessities)

whether or not you AGREE with liberal policies is not the issue, i know full well that you don't. but by all means explain to me how american liberal policy positions are more self-centered than american conservative positions.

for that matter, if we want to expand the discussion, how about socialism vs. capitalism? capitalism is ALL about the individual, even at the expense of the greater social good, whereas socialism is ALL about the greater social good, even at the expense of the individual. please leave any ignorant neocon anti-communist babbling out of your response and just focus on the role of the individual vs. society at large.

you are all cockeyed on this one, i think.

as for me, always been a liberal, will always be a liberal. :D also, born to vaguely deistic parents, but i've been an atheist since i was old enough to decide for myself, and unless god comes down and talks to me, i always will be.

[all_arm]

Now if only you can get your fellow libs to stop the reframing of the other side. Eg, non-libs are either "neocons", or the farrrrrrr ultra uber way way out there right wing. :D



you don't seem to know what "neoconservative" means. the vast majority of today's republican party can most accurately be described with that word.

[Federal Farmer]

you don't seem to know what "neoconservative" means. the vast majority of today's republican party can most accurately be described with that word.

Actually, the word "neo-con" refers to, literally, "New Conservative", and is generally descriptive of former Liberals who have come to the Conservative side of the isle. The number of "neo-cons" is quite small in the Republican Party, making up less than 20% of the total number. The vast majority of Republicans are, and always have been "conservative" to one extent or another, whether it be the more Libertarian leaning all the way to the hard line conservatives.

[all_arm]

Actually, the word "neo-con" refers to, literally, "New Conservative", and is generally descriptive of former Liberals who have come to the Conservative side of the isle. The number of "neo-cons" is quite small in the Republican Party, making up less than 20% of the total number. The vast majority of Republicans are, and always have been "conservative" to one extent or another, whether it be the more Libertarian leaning all the way to the hard line conservatives.



nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

neoconservative refers to the rejection of "classical conservative" ideals (what americans now call "libertarianism") in favor of big military and more authoritarian social policies. it has nothing to do with how long they've been conservative, but with their specific brand of conservative ideology.

the term you're thinking of is "neoliberal," which (in the conventional american usage) is the rejection of both "classical liberalism" as well as socialism and social democracy, in favor of an overall right/centrist viewpoint in economic and foreign affairs, and a left/centrist position on domestic issues and civil liberties.

[Federal Farmer]

nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

neoconservative refers to the rejection of "classical conservative" ideals (what americans now call "libertarianism") in favor of big military and more authoritarian social policies. it has nothing to do with how long they've been conservative, but with their specific brand of conservative ideology.

the term you're thinking of is "neoliberal," which (in the conventional american usage) is the rejection of both "classical liberalism" as well as socialism and social democracy, in favor of an overall right/centrist viewpoint in economic and foreign affairs, and a left/centrist position on domestic issues and civil liberties.

Young one, I realize that in your very short 21 years on this earth that you have come like to think that you know something, especially with your skull full of mush being scrambled by all of your liberal Professors, but let an old man, with grandchildren approaching your age, give you a little pointer; If you're going to cite something as a point of disagreement, you might want to read enough of it to make sure that it doesn't contradict the point you're trying to make as it only serves to make you look even more foolish than you already do. Also, while Wiki is a fairly good starting point for research, don't fall into the trap of believing everything that's been posted there, especially since it is "user edited", and anyone with an agenda can post anything they want to, regardless of the validity of their postings.

Remember the maxim "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

From your source;
Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s. ...

Ergo, Liberals leaving the liberal party for the conservative party

The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right".[3][4] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[5] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."[1]

Again, Liberals leaving their party for the conservative party.

Neo-conservative means "new conservative", because the word "neo" is a prefix that literally means "new". If I were talking about "neo liberals", I would have been talking about people who had left conservatism for liberalism, which would be indicative of the individuals in question having undergone a Frontal Lobotomy.

[SusanConstant]

I have always been wholly for the Declaration and Constitution. No political party perserves, protects and defends either. All political parties that I know of violate the law in some way...I went through a list once and the closest party I identified with was some guy who had nothng to say except something like "love your brother. I have no intention of ever campaigning for any office and this party is about peace, love and the golden rule. I'm the only member of this party as I stopped seeking members. If you like peace, love and brotherhood, then you may call yourself a member of this party. I am selling a cd of some music as I use the proceeds to maintain this website and to pay fees." That was it. He had a picture of a rainbow or something flashing in the background.

This appeals to me as it is very American no matter how unrealistic it is. But, I wouldn't call myself a member of this party. As for what am I as in liberal, etc.? An originalist, a centrist and a Deist (who knows miracles are real as it is physics and who knows as fact the God intervenes in Earthly events at times; I had to revise those two Deist mistaken beliefs but can still call myself a Deist as not all philosophy is law and so may be subject to revision). I have no extreme views and most likely will never belong to any party as all of my beliefs are reasoned and supported with evidence rising to proof. By their very nature political parties have no reason but only excuse.

Besides: no election involving my person is valid due to my direct federal challenge which overtured Bush v Gore. If I vote in any election I lose my federal standing as then I am giving consent - authoirty and power - to these people. My vote was illegally denied me in 2000 & 2004 and the federal court refuses to addres it so unless I choose to give away my legal power and moral authority Marbury says I must not vote. My vote has no actual legal power as I am a woman but it has zero protection of the law as I am Susan, a true, absolute class of one. I'm already on my way back into the Supreme Court but even if the legal power of my vote was secured tomorrow I'd still refuse to join a party. Oh -by centrst? I have views people can't stand but I in no way act spinelessy or kiss ass. To me centrist means: The truth of what our law says and how it is to be applied equally to all.

[GraceAustin]

What did you used to be?>>>

Ignorant. I viewed life in black or white, without appreciating the shades of grey that could impact my opinions. It was, after all, more important to be 'right' than to be correct in my assumptions.

[Libsmasher]

i have to say i'm not sure where the liberal media myth originated. as a liberal, and knowing lots of other liberals, we all think the media is doing a piss-poor job.

for the most part, big media is about MONEY, not ideology. CORPORATIONS control the media, not liberals.

Do I have to spend ALL my time tutoring people here?? Corporations have become the lap-kitties of the left:

- they've implemented the left's policies of anti-white racism in the workplace
- they've suppressed religious connected things like christmas parties
- they pander to minorities anti-white racism with ads, TV, and movies ridiculing white males
- they give shacked up gays company benefits for their partner, but not for heterosexual employees
- they give money to the big liberal-left foundations
- they acquiesce to shakedowns by minority "leaders" like Jesse Jackson
- they support and make money from the illegal alien invasion
- they brag about their contributions for research for diseases of the democrat parties client groups (breast cancer and AIDS) while other wide spread disease research efforts are starved for funds.


etc etc --- GET A CLUE

[Libsmasher]

you don't seem to know what "neoconservative" means. the vast majority of today's republican party can most accurately be described with that word.

That is patently absurd - the term arose within the conservative movement to describe a group of disaffected liberals. They were lead by mostly ex-liberal jewish intellectuals such as Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, who tired of the drift of the democrat party's traditional opposition to communism as exemplified by such as Truman and JFK, to a leftwing view, and later a blatant anti-israeli view, and finally an islamofascist apologist view. Since such individuals supported the iraq war, the gene-missing appeaser blogosphere picked up the term, previously used only by intellectuals, and turned it (ridiculously) into an all-purpoe invective to denote ANY persons who supported the iraq war.

The current meaninglessness of the term, from wiki:

Some of those identified as neoconservative reject the term, arguing that it lacks a coherent definition, or that it was coherent only in the context of the Cold War.

Conservative writer David Horowitz argues that the increasing use of the term neoconservative since the 2003 start of the Iraq War has made it irrelevant:[citation needed]

Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.

The term may have lost meaning due to excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have been identified as leading neoconservatives despite the fact that they have been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has supported Irving Kristol's ideas).

Some critics reject the idea that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism. Traditional conservatives are skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term and dislike being associated with its stereotypes or supposed agendas. Columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."[39] Jonah Goldberg rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative."

[palerider]

please tell me how liberalism is more focused on the exclusionary promotion of the individual than conservatism.

Interesting that you would ask such a question. Even more interesting that you don't seem to know the answer. I will be happy to answer, but let me ask a question first.

Which is more important to you liberty or equality?

[all_arm]

Interesting that you would ask such a question. Even more interesting that you don't seem to know the answer. I will be happy to answer, but let me ask a question first.

Which is more important to you liberty or equality?


is this a a silly hypothetical where the two are made out to be mutually exclusive? you'll have to elaborate; exactly which liberties would be lost in the search for equality? what inequality would be present in a state of maximum liberty? i can't give you a good answer, because you're clearly setting me up for a gotcha moment, where you project your ideals onto me to make me look bad.


as for "neoconservative," it doesn't matter what it used to mean- lots of words used to have different meanings than they do now.

fed- you posted it- rejection of social liberalism despite a desire for bigger government, distaste for the 60's counterculture- that IS today's republican party. the small-government party that coined the term forty years ago no longer exists, having been taken over by that faction.

the bashing of wikipedia is funny... you realize that YOU, or anyone else, is free to change anything you know to be wrong? and as long as you're supported by facts, the page will remain as you left it? yes, wiki is a bad place for serious research, because its writers often lack the specific knowledge necessary for that type of writing, but the notion that because it's user edited, it's inherently inaccurate, is so 2002.

[bododie]

Used to be a Republican, now a Constitutionalist.

[Agnapostate]

I was as far to the right as a person could be. I was an evangelical Christian and an Old Testament Reconstructionist. I literally wanted Christendom to be established. Since then, I've become secular and flown to an equally extreme position on the left as an anarcho-communist.