More nonsensical horseshiat from "Reason."

reasonexcuseonline

Neoconservatism? Pseudo-conservatism would be more accurate.

We can have McCain's government that does nothing while the economy goes down the tubes or Obama's government that proactively acts to prevent the economy from tanking and has an economic and fiscal policy that can provide the stimulus that the Bush/McCain tax-cut 'magic wand' has failed to procure.

lexslamman: We can have McCain's government that does nothing while the economy goes down the tubes or Obama's government that proactively acts to prevent the economy from tanking and has an economic and fiscal policy that can provide the stimulus that the Bush/McCain tax-cut 'magic wand' has failed to procure.

Bahahahaha. Obama is a politician, just like McCain.

Intervention; It ain't for liberals anymore

Wait, isn't "liberal interventionism" the ideological seed of the neo-conservative movement?

/wharrgarbl

that article almost made me go full retard just from reading it.

Um... not necessarily. If Obama's "liberal interventionism" can cause blowback, it will do so independent of whether or not "McCain-style neoconservatism" causes blowback.

Yeah!

If sun can cause sunburn, then dark can cause darkburn. Duh!

Pundits, talking heads, and insiders haven't yet figured out their mindless parroting of political convention wisdom is obsolete.

It's 2008. And throwing around Liberal and Conservative don't mean anything anymore.

I don't have the slightest clue what the hell people are talking about when they use these words.

Let's just use the Classical Definitions. Since the 60s, Republicans have been fiscal Liberals and Social Conservatives.

And Democrats have been fiscal Conservatives and social Liberals.

Classical Liberalism, of course, being liberty with regards to money. . .with as little government intrusion as possible.

Thus, Democrats are perfectly happy to put controls on the economy while letting people do what they please, and Republicans have been just the opposite.

DarnoKonrad: Let's just use the Classical Definitions. Since the 60s, Republicans have been fiscal Liberals and Social Conservatives.

And Democrats have been fiscal Conservatives and social Liberals.

So Democrats are Republicans and Republicans are Democrats?
Who do I vote for now?

/just kidding. I got your point and it is a good one.

What like spending Hundreds of billions of dollars to bailout financial institutions that kind of "Intervention"?

Open wide, interventionism is coming

Wow. The GOP is resorting to "I'm rubber you're glue...."? They must really be noticing themselves circling the drain.

And thus a new meme is born: Obama is dangerous because he is a soft peacenik who will weaken America's defenses and negotiate with terrorists, AND Obama is also dangerous because he is a rabid warmonger who will increase military spending and attack other nations unilaterally.

YixilTesiphon: lexslamman: We can have McCain's government that does nothing while the economy goes down the tubes or Obama's government that proactively acts to prevent the economy from tanking and has an economic and fiscal policy that can provide the stimulus that the Bush/McCain tax-cut 'magic wand' has failed to procure.

Bahahahaha. Obama is a politician, just like McCain.

That isn't relevant to the argument.

HighOnCraic: And thus a new meme is born: Obama is dangerous because he is a soft peacenik who will weaken America's defenses and negotiate with terrorists, AND Obama is also dangerous because he is a rabid warmonger who will increase military spending and attack other nations unilaterally.

Neither is true.

Samantha Power, like Wolfowitz, advocates armed intervention when called for. Power may consider unilateral intervention only as a last resort, but last resorts seem to crop up pretty quick lately. The only significant difference in their policies is what constitutes good cause for sending in the tanks.

Obama is certainly against the war in Iraq; but he is not against war. No Democrat president has been, excluding possibly Carter.

I used to actually subscribe to this magazine. Talk about fantasy land, yikes.

chipspastic: Wow. The GOP is resorting to "I'm rubber you're glue...."? They must really be noticing themselves circling the drain.

Do any of y'all realize what magazine you're reading? This is Reason. It hates the Republicans and Democrats equally.

Obama's government that proactively acts to prevent the economy from tanking and has an economic and fiscal policy that can provide the stimulus that the Bush/McCain tax-cut 'magic wand' has failed to procure.

Wait.. you can only have one of those. Do you want to have a pro-active government that gets involved in the economy, or do you want a government whose policies will actually work (meaning: let the economy fix itself according to economic reality, not some politician's whims)?

ivan: HighOnCraic: And thus a new meme is born: Obama is dangerous because he is a soft peacenik who will weaken America's defenses and negotiate with terrorists, AND Obama is also dangerous because he is a rabid warmonger who will increase military spending and attack other nations unilaterally.

Neither is true.


Yeah, I realize that, but that won't stop either from being a frequently repeated talking point.

He's an empty suit with no plans AND the most liberal politician ever to exist with plans that are very dangerous; he's a Muslim AND the wrong kind of Christian, etc. I just think it's all kinda silly.

/Not even sure if I'm voting for him, 'cause it's not as if McCain has a chance at winning New York.
//Toying with the idea of voting for Nader.

The bat shiat crazy neo-cons (the definition of which is a former liberal interventionist) calling Obama an 'interventionist' is only what you would expect from these brain dead zombies.

"I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president." John McCain Excerpt from his book: "Worth the Fighting For: A Memoir" (2002)

YixilTesiphon: Do any of y'all realize what magazine you're reading? This is Reason. It hates the Republicans and Democrats equally.

Not as much as it hates actual, you know, reason.

I like this in the week where the Republican administration has intervened to bail out all the failing financial companies.

Blathering Idjut 2008-09-19 04:34:05 PM
YixilTesiphon: Do any of y'all realize what magazine you're reading? This is Reason. It hates the Republicans and Democrats equally.

Not as much as it hates actual, you know, reason.


From the intelligent responses to the article posted in this thread, it doesn't seem like its the article that, you know, hates reason.

beve [TotalFark] 2008-09-19 05:07:35 PM
I like this in the week where the Republican administration has intervened to bail out all the failing financial companies.

Moves which have been fiercely opposed by the writers at reason.

beve: I like this in the week where the Republican administration has intervened to bail out all the failing financial companies.

TFA is about foreign policy.