Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Yeah, and the jackass hardly even touches upon how useful the Contras were at bashing in the skulls of religious missionaries. Those things are like fucking 2 week old grapefruits!
|
Point being...? |
The point being that they were savage fucking killers with no respect for human life, but I'm sure you knew that already......
Quote:
|
AlsThat's the most absurd thing I've heard you say in this thread, today. They can't be polar if they share commonalities? Is that merely in theory, or in practice as well? If Reagan wasn't a conservative, who was? What then was FDR? You need to think before you post, b/c you don't know nearly as much as you'd like to pretend....
|
Who said liberals and conservatives are polar opposites?[/quote]
You haven't answered a single question I've asked you, however, I'll answer this:
Since the development of our nation, there has been one big question. This question is essentially (in a very paraphrased text version) what formed the original two-faction divide in our country. Even in voting patterns in the first and second U.S. Congress, you can see the debate over how active our government should be developing.
The "Liberalism" that was applied by FDR, and originated by those before him, such as Al Smith and the progressives, called for an interventionist government. To cut things short, Reagan is the electoral result of the forces that worked against that philosophy.
So, in this country, since we have a two-party system ultimately brought about due to one big debate, then Liberalism and conservatism do in fact oppose each other.
Quote:
|
Neoconservatives aren't only characterized by interventionalism. Those were not neocons.
|
You are wrong. Elaborate, or go away. Those men were interventionists, internationalists, and many supported internationalism as a rejection of leftist doctrine, seeing the world divided in half (much like the machtpolitikers of the 10970s).