Edit: Mayor Rob Ford admits to smoking crack

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ooohhh, okay, so a radical liberal is any non-Conservative that does shit you don't like. K.

Actually no ... I never said that, would you be happy if I called neo cons radical conservatives .. I'm fine with that...you know I doubt there is a single province or the federal liberals that just got elected are governing with a 50 % mandate, more in the range as here in Ontario with 40% percent mandate of the people who voted, broke down even further it likely under 25% of eligable ... sorry that's not a mandate to push these activist radical agenda ... but hey what hell ... you can continue to believe these useless politician care ...

I would consider neo-cons to be radical conservatives, because of their political ideologies. Not because they might be in power without a 50% mandate. Now you mention an activist radical agenda.... What about their policies are radical? None at all, as far as I can tell. This has absolutely nothing to do with me supporting the Ontario political agenda and I never even hinted that I think they care. FYI, and absolutely DESPISE the BC Liberals... but they aren't radical either. They just fucking suck. It's the same in Ontario. Not radical. Not even close. Just a shitty fucking Provincial Liberal party situation where they aren't doing their jobs properly.

Neo-cons, such as myself, are far closer to classic JFK liberalism. Radical liberals are pretty much all those who abandoned those JFK principles and now see American intervention as the root of all evil. We saw many of them boo Panetta last night and chant "no more war". By this definition about 95% of the AMT would be considered to be radical. This percentage creates a bubble however which prevents most from seeing this.

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ooohhh, okay, so a radical liberal is any non-Conservative that does shit you don't like. K.

Actually no ... I never said that, would you be happy if I called neo cons radical conservatives .. I'm fine with that...you know I doubt there is a single province or the federal liberals that just got elected are governing with a 50 % mandate, more in the range as here in Ontario with 40% percent mandate of the people who voted, broke down even further it likely under 25% of eligable ... sorry that's not a mandate to push these activist radical agenda ... but hey what hell ... you can continue to believe these useless politician care ...

I would consider neo-cons to be radical conservatives, because of their political ideologies. Not because they might be in power without a 50% mandate. Now you mention an activist radical agenda.... What about their policies are radical? None at all, as far as I can tell. This has absolutely nothing to do with me supporting the Ontario political agenda and I never even hinted that I think they care. FYI, and absolutely DESPISE the BC Liberals... but they aren't radical either. They just fucking suck. It's the same in Ontario. Not radical. Not even close. Just a shitty fucking Provincial Liberal party situation where they aren't doing their jobs properly.

Neo-cons, such as myself, are far closer to classic JFK liberalism. Radical liberals are pretty much all those who abandoned those JFK principles and now see American intervention as the root of all evil. We saw many of them boo Panetta last night and chant "no more war". By this definition about 95% of the AMT would be considered to be radical. This percentage creates a bubble however which prevents most from seeing this.

So in other words, you're just making up a definition for radical liberals out of thin air.
(and never mind. I was brainfarting when I wrote that. I don't consider neo-cons radical. I for some reason had teapartiers in my head and meant them)

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ooohhh, okay, so a radical liberal is any non-Conservative that does shit you don't like. K.

Actually no ... I never said that, would you be happy if I called neo cons radical conservatives .. I'm fine with that...you know I doubt there is a single province or the federal liberals that just got elected are governing with a 50 % mandate, more in the range as here in Ontario with 40% percent mandate of the people who voted, broke down even further it likely under 25% of eligable ... sorry that's not a mandate to push these activist radical agenda ... but hey what hell ... you can continue to believe these useless politician care ...

I would consider neo-cons to be radical conservatives, because of their political ideologies. Not because they might be in power without a 50% mandate. Now you mention an activist radical agenda.... What about their policies are radical? None at all, as far as I can tell. This has absolutely nothing to do with me supporting the Ontario political agenda and I never even hinted that I think they care. FYI, and absolutely DESPISE the BC Liberals... but they aren't radical either. They just fucking suck. It's the same in Ontario. Not radical. Not even close. Just a shitty fucking Provincial Liberal party situation where they aren't doing their jobs properly.

Neo-cons, such as myself, are far closer to classic JFK liberalism. Radical liberals are pretty much all those who abandoned those JFK principles and now see American intervention as the root of all evil. We saw many of them boo Panetta last night and chant "no more war". By this definition about 95% of the AMT would be considered to be radical. This percentage creates a bubble however which prevents most from seeing this.

So in other words, you're just making up a definition for radical liberals out of thin air.

No. I am providing you historical context as to where these terms are rooted. The 60's and the Vietnam war changed the democratic party in to something far more radical then what it was under JFK. The Clinton's changed that following Hillary's health care defeat when they declared the era of big government over. This changed back though after the Iraq war especially after Obama managed to use Hillary's vote against her. The party has now moved so far left that a self identifying socialist almost won the nomination. Hillary Clinton has no choice now but to play along but everybody knows that JFK could never get elected in today's democratic party.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/10/19/would-jfk-never-liberal-still-find-home-democratic-party/ZrxV7lJYHrvWxOjXItAuZJ/story.html

PJ_Soul

Democratic Socialist. Not a Socialist. Big difference. And Hillary is so far away from being a radical liberal it's really just a joke that you are attempting to group her in even just by default. Bottom line is that no one on these boards are using the term for any reason other than to mislabel people who are posting.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

Democratic Socialist. Not a Socialist. Big difference. And Hillary is so far away from being a radical liberal it's really just a joke that you are attempting to group her in even just by default. Bottom line is that no one on these boards are using the term for any reason other than to mislabel people who are posting.

I agree with you on Hillary...like I said she is just playing along for the purpose of getting her base to vote for her. She is far more likely to be an interventionalist hawk in my mind and she will approve TPP etc. I disagree with you on the socialist bit though. A democratic socialist is just a socialist who hasn't reached his/her final destination yet. With time their policies always get them there. The only question is how fast.

PJfanwillneverleave1

PJ_Soul said:

Democratic Socialist. Not a Socialist. Big difference. And Hillary is so far away from being a radical liberal it's really just a joke that you are attempting to group her in even just by default. Bottom line is that no one on these boards are using the term for any reason other than to mislabel people who are posting.

And until everyone on the boards agree to this will be kept shouting louder and louder!

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ooohhh, okay, so a radical liberal is any non-Conservative that does shit you don't like. K.

Actually no ... I never said that, would you be happy if I called neo cons radical conservatives .. I'm fine with that...you know I doubt there is a single province or the federal liberals that just got elected are governing with a 50 % mandate, more in the range as here in Ontario with 40% percent mandate of the people who voted, broke down even further it likely under 25% of eligable ... sorry that's not a mandate to push these activist radical agenda ... but hey what hell ... you can continue to believe these useless politician care ...

I would consider neo-cons to be radical conservatives, because of their political ideologies. Not because they might be in power without a 50% mandate. Now you mention an activist radical agenda.... What about their policies are radical? None at all, as far as I can tell. This has absolutely nothing to do with me supporting the Ontario political agenda and I never even hinted that I think they care. FYI, and absolutely DESPISE the BC Liberals... but they aren't radical either. They just fucking suck. It's the same in Ontario. Not radical. Not even close. Just a shitty fucking Provincial Liberal party situation where they aren't doing their jobs properly.

Neo-cons, such as myself, are far closer to classic JFK liberalism. Radical liberals are pretty much all those who abandoned those JFK principles and now see American intervention as the root of all evil. We saw many of them boo Panetta last night and chant "no more war". By this definition about 95% of the AMT would be considered to be radical. This percentage creates a bubble however which prevents most from seeing this.

So in other words, you're just making up a definition for radical liberals out of thin air.
(and never mind. I was brainfarting when I wrote that. I don't consider neo-cons radical. I for some reason had teapartiers in my head and meant them)

Your edit is still incorrect as "tea partiers" are not radical either. If any thing they are less so. They are small government voters who are concerned about spending and the debt. They are not specific about foreign policy or social issues. All though you can find hawks and social conservatives within the tea party movement. To bring this topic back to it's roots...Rob Ford is the original "tea partier". Small government conservative focusing on spending.

PJ_Soul

If you deny that teapartiers are radical, then you just can't claim that the ones you're calling radical are.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

If you deny that teapartiers are radical, then you just can't claim that the ones you're calling radical are.

I get why you would think small government conservatives who are primarily concerned with spending and deficits are radical but that is just not the case.

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

If you deny that teapartiers are radical, then you just can't claim that the ones you're calling radical are.

I get why you would think small government conservatives who are primarily concerned with spending and deficits are radical but that is just not the case.

That is absolutely NOT all that teapartiers are generally about.

lukin2006

This is a Rob Ford thread ...

BS44325

lukin2006 said:

This is a Rob Ford thread ...

Rob Ford was pushing a tea party agenda before the tea party became cool.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

If you deny that teapartiers are radical, then you just can't claim that the ones you're calling radical are.

I get why you would think small government conservatives who are primarily concerned with spending and deficits are radical but that is just not the case.

That is absolutely NOT all that teapartiers are generally about.

Yes it is. Think of a Ven Diagram with small government/spending in the middle. In the outer circles there would be social conservatives, neocons, isolationists, libertarians, and even democrats. These are different groups who find commonality on spending. The movement began under Bush and continued through Obama with it's peak occurring during the run up to the Affordable Care Act. The democratic party, as always, had to turn the opposition into a bunch of racists which is maybe why you are so confused. This is why the racism charges are failing to stick today.

PJ_Soul

All I'm getting from you is that as far as you're concerned, there aren't any radical conservatives until you reach, say, the Westboro Baptists, but anyone left of centre is a radical liberal.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

All I'm getting from you is that as far as you're concerned, there aren't any radical conservatives until you reach, say, the Westboro Baptists, but anyone left of centre is a radical liberal.

You are not getting that from me. You are getting a description of what the Tea Party is.

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

All I'm getting from you is that as far as you're concerned, there aren't any radical conservatives until you reach, say, the Westboro Baptists, but anyone left of centre is a radical liberal.

You are not getting that from me. You are getting a description of what the Tea Party is.

No, I'm getting it from everything you've said.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

All I'm getting from you is that as far as you're concerned, there aren't any radical conservatives until you reach, say, the Westboro Baptists, but anyone left of centre is a radical liberal.

You are not getting that from me. You are getting a description of what the Tea Party is.

No, I'm getting it from everything you've said.

I'm sorry but there is nothing "radical" about wanting small government or limits on spending. You might want to consider that it is your own radicalism which prevents you from seeing that.

rgambs

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

All I'm getting from you is that as far as you're concerned, there aren't any radical conservatives until you reach, say, the Westboro Baptists, but anyone left of centre is a radical liberal.

You are not getting that from me. You are getting a description of what the Tea Party is.

No, I'm getting it from everything you've said.

I'm sorry but there is nothing "radical" about wanting small government or limits on spending. You might want to consider that it is your own radicalism which prevents you from seeing that.

Wanting the abolishment of the EPA, IRS, FDA, Fed Reserve, National Parks, and practically all Federal level government is absolutely radical.

You don't know the tea party as well as you think you do.

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

All I'm getting from you is that as far as you're concerned, there aren't any radical conservatives until you reach, say, the Westboro Baptists, but anyone left of centre is a radical liberal.

You are not getting that from me. You are getting a description of what the Tea Party is.

No, I'm getting it from everything you've said.

I'm sorry but there is nothing "radical" about wanting small government or limits on spending. You might want to consider that it is your own radicalism which prevents you from seeing that.

You are ignoring everything else about the tea party, lol. If you want to only focus on two things out of many, sure. If you want to actually look at the whole picture, no.
And I am not radical, not even remotely close to radical, and am now specifically requesting that you not call me that. I take it as a misrepresentation of my beliefs and my position. You have absolutely no reason to think I am or say I am, so stop it.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

All I'm getting from you is that as far as you're concerned, there aren't any radical conservatives until you reach, say, the Westboro Baptists, but anyone left of centre is a radical liberal.

You are not getting that from me. You are getting a description of what the Tea Party is.

No, I'm getting it from everything you've said.

I'm sorry but there is nothing "radical" about wanting small government or limits on spending. You might want to consider that it is your own radicalism which prevents you from seeing that.

You are ignoring everything else about the tea party, lol. If you want to only focus on two things out of many, sure. If you want to actually look at the whole picture, no.
And I am not radical, not even remotely close to radical, and am now specifically requesting that you not call me that. I take it as a misrepresentation of my beliefs and my position. You have absolutely no reason to think I am or say I am, so stop it.

That capitalism comment on the other thread though...