Are you trying to say that progressives are the Bush/Cheney types that want to lead the world with military might?
No. What I am saying is that neo-conservatives are not conservatives. Neo-conservatives were born out of the progressive/left. Irving Kristol is credited with being the "godfather of neo-conservatism". The following from Wikipedia:
In 1973, Michael Harrington coined the term "neoconservatism" to describe those liberal intellectuals and political philosophers who were disaffected with the political and cultural attitudes dominating the Democratic Party and were moving toward a new form of conservatism.[9] Intended by Harrington as a pejorative term, it was accepted by Kristol as an apt description of the ideas and policies exemplified by The Public Interest. Unlike liberals, for example, neoconservatives rejected most of the Great Society programs sponsored by Lyndon Johnson; and unlike traditional conservatives, they supported the more limited welfare state instituted by Roosevelt.
In February 1979, Kristol was featured on the cover of Esquire. The caption identified him as "the godfather of the most powerful new political force in America -- Neoconservatism".[10] That year also saw the publication of the book The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America's Politics. Like Harrington, the author, Peter Steinfels, was critical of neoconservatism, but he was impressed by its growing political and intellectual influence. Kristol's response appeared under the title "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed -- Perhaps the Only -- 'Neoconservative'".[11]
Neoconservatism, Kristol maintains, is not an ideology but a "persuasion", a way of thinking about politics rather than a compendium of principles and axioms.[12] It is classical rather than romantic in temperament, and practical and anti-Utopian in policy. One of Kristol's most celebrated quips defines a neoconservative as "a liberal who has been mugged by reality". As a former Trotskyist, Irving was indeed himself mugged by the "reality" of conservative philosophy and enfolded leftist policies such as a lack of objection to welfare (nanny-state) programs, international "revolution" through nation-building/militarily imposed "democracy" and application of Fabian Socialism/Keynesianism coupled with a socially conservative viewpoint. These concepts lie at the core of neoconservative philosophy to this day.[13]
I respect your libertarian choice. In an ideal world it would work out perfectly.
But see, that is half of what I like most about Libertarian philosophy. It doesn't rely on the "perfect world" analogy. That is exactly how I view progressives philosophy. Wanting Utopia. Making a perfect world, but we all know that is not possible, right?
Progressives take from those that produce to give to those who cannot. A noble idea but impractical. Look at where that philosophy has brought us. We not only give to those who are needy but there is rampant corruption, greed and fraud in the system. Also, we are giving billions to corporations and countries. Every time I hear Obama say if we don't raise the debt ceiling, SS checks may not go out. This really pisses me off. He is threatening those who can least afford to go without and fails to consider, what if we brought our troops home, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan but from all over the world? How about we stop Foreign Welfare (Aid)? Our government is shitting all over our rights in the name of the "War on Terrorism" but yet gives billions to one of the worst terrorist nations around, Israel.
The Libertarian philosophy takes human frailty into account. It's not a perfect system either but I think it's time has come. I know it's hard to imagine how a Libertarian government would keep us safe and cozy while eliminating all those bloated and wasteful agencies but the answers are out there.
http://libertariananswers.com/
This whole "dog and pony" show of making the world safe from terrorists is a facade. WE are committing acts of terrorism ourselves. How many false flag operations are we to endure before the sleeping giant is awakened?
It is time to stop the madness and throw out the tyrants just like we did a couple centuries ago.
Give freedom a chance!!!
I respect that you consider a third choice but the reality is there is no third choice.
That is because campaign finance has been the only thing that has 100% bipartisan support. The Rs and Ds have rigged the game so that they are the only players. The only way an outsider can even get their foot in the door is if they are wealthy enough to fund their own campaign, like Ross Perot tried.
It is my opinion that it is best to support the lesser of those 2 evils. Play the hand you're dealt.
I know some people that always voted for Ralph Nader. What good did those people do? Not a bit.
I respectfully disagree. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I have only voted for one republican, Ron Paul, both for Congress and for President. I have never voted for a Democrat, even though at one time I believed in the liberal cause, I just wasn't motivated enough to vote. Every other vote I cast was for Libertarians, even though I knew most had no chance of winning. I vote my conscience. It may not have done any good as far as the results go, but in my mind, I did what was right.
BTW, I meant to say this earlier, thank you for toning down the discourse. I enjoy discussing the issues with you much better now and I have gained more respect for you, too.
