Republican protesters openly admit using racist imagry

[Berkut]

The Republicans have their own share of powerful lunatic extremists. Like, the entire fucking religious right. Are you disputing their extremism or their influence on the party politics?

Not at all - but the Religious Right is not generally racist - far from it in fact.

[grumbler]

We just kicked out Van Jones because he signed some stupid Truther leaflet. 

You and who else?  And what did you kick him out of?  Your tree house?

[grumbler]

Huh?  Everything I've read about Irving Kristol and friends has to do with their falling out with progressives/socialists over the latter's failure to face up to the brutality of Soviet rule.

TYhat's how I've always seen it, but maybe there is a British Neoconservative movement older than the American one, that was focused on urban issues.

[Queequeg]

We just kicked out Van Jones because he signed some stupid Truther leaflet. 

You and who else?  And what did you kick him out of?  Your tree house?

We-Democrats
Kicked out-of his cabinet level position. 

[Sheilbh]

Huh?  Everything I've read about Irving Kristol and friends has to do with their falling out with progressives/socialists over the latter's failure to face up to the brutality of Soviet rule.

Not at all.  Kristol and the 'Public Interest' started in the mid-60s which was hardly a time of progressive acquiesence to Soviet brutality.  He became critical of the foreign policy of the New Left as the 60s and 70s went on but neo-conservatism was a critique of the 'Great Society' and progressive domestic failings and a perceived hostility to capitalism on the part of the left in the 60s.

You can see the lack of a foreign policy focus just by browsing through the back catalogue of 'The Public Interest', which is fascinating anyway:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/archive/public_interest/default.asp

I think the foreign policy element only really came to the fore in the 80s and 90s.

[Sheilbh]

Also in this Kristol essay - which I've only just found and skimmed - doesn't seem to mention foreign affairs at all, and this is from 1995:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080709_19951216americanconservatism19451995irvingkristol.pdf

I'll read it to make sure.

[grumbler]

We-Democrats
Kicked out-of his cabinet level position.

Ah, I see.  A Democratic appointee resigns, and you see it as a personal accomplishment. 

Whatever validates you in your own eyes is okay by me, I suppose, but don't expect others (like me) to understand when you claim personal credit for the actions of cabinet officers.

[grumbler]

Also in this Kristol essay - which I've only just found and skimmed - doesn't seem to mention foreign affairs at all, and this is from 1995:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080709_19951216americanconservatism19451995irvingkristol.pdf

I'll read it to make sure.

Interesting.  Kristol's argument seems to me to be that he was a true conservative who once was simply confused and thought he was a liberal.

But you are correct, and have corrected my misunderstanding on the issue.

[Queequeg]

We-Democrats
Kicked out-of his cabinet level position.

Ah, I see.  A Democratic appointee resigns, and you see it as a personal accomplishment. 

Whatever validates you in your own eyes is okay by me, I suppose, but don't expect others (like me) to understand when you claim personal credit for the actions of cabinet officers.

Right.  Personal accomplishment.  It was a goddamn shorthand way of saying The Democrats.  I'm obviously NOT the President of the United States, and I don't need you to remind me of that. 

[grumbler]

Right.  Personal accomplishment.  It was a goddamn shorthand way of saying The Democrats.  I'm obviously NOT the President of the United States, and I don't need you to remind me of that.

  Learn to write the fucking language, if you want to avoid misunderstandings.  I have no way of knowing that you mean "The Democrats" when you say "we," and even if I did as a general rule, the statement would have made no sense since no one kicked out Van Jones.  I thought you might be claiming to be an Illuminati or something. 

[Jaron]

grumbler still rocks. 

[Sheilbh]

Interesting.  Kristol's argument seems to me to be that he was a true conservative who once was simply confused and thought he was a liberal.

Yeah the whole Public Interest archive's fascinating.  It's been put online by National Affairs which is a magazine that's trying to fill a similar role of writing engaged, policy-based conservative commentary and critique of politics.  Which I think is essential when, it seems to me, most other conservative publications have given up that and replaced it with an attitude of cultural grievance.

[Razgovory]

Right.  Personal accomplishment.  It was a goddamn shorthand way of saying The Democrats.  I'm obviously NOT the President of the United States, and I don't need you to remind me of that.

  Learn to write the fucking language, if you want to avoid misunderstandings.  I have no way of knowing that you mean "The Democrats" when you say "we," and even if I did as a general rule, the statement would have made no sense since no one kicked out Van Jones.  I thought you might be claiming to be an Illuminati or something.

Glen Beck takes credit for it.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah the whole Public Interest archive's fascinating.  It's been put online by National Affairs which is a magazine that's trying to fill a similar role of writing engaged, policy-based conservative commentary and critique of politics.  Which I think is essential when, it seems to me, most other conservative publications have given up that and replaced it with an attitude of cultural grievance.

What most other conservative publications are you referring to?  National Review was a pretty serious magazine when I used to read it.  And the only other conservative publication I can think of is The Weekly Standard.

[Razgovory]

What was the one that was owned by Richard Mellon Scaife?