Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
The Sandinistas weren't even supported by the majority of their own people during Reagan's age, and it took the Contra rebels to open up elections. This guy doesn't even mention that the Sandinista's gained power through a bloody revolt.
|
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!
Quote:
|
Also, I think you missed the point of my post. Political doctrines, no matter what name you give them, can't be opposites of one another if they share something in common.
|
That'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....
Quote:
|
And the first neocons were Trotskyites.
|
Wrong. Read some Metternich, or maybe even some Cortes. Conservatism in the 18th and 19th Centuries was divided into various camps. Before what had been called the "great reversal," conservatives espoused "aristocratic internationalism," and interventionism. Later, Cortes saw the battle lines between Catholocism and early Socialism (he thought liberalism would be the first to go). Catholocism and socialism were both interventionist doctrines that transcended national boundaries.
You'd be surprised to discover that the little "ideology quiz" made up on the internet doesn't quite suffice in the grand scheme of things.
Hybrid Mode
