Comment: Mark?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Objective analysis. (see in situ)


So your here for 35 minutes and the first thing you do is pop up a Mark Levin thread? Ummm... Then you point out things that you obviously have no idea about, like the numerous undeclared conflicts, ect. Read this. But your underlying premise is this: "well people in the past did do this, so it's ok now." Well, as a strict constructionist this holds no weight. If it was done wrong back then it's still wrong today. Wrong precedent doesn't equal constitutional 100 years later. Also you might want to read Presidential War Power by Louis Fisher.

As per your inquiry below that I don't know what a neocon is, you’re wrong. The neocons are the left that infiltrated the Old Right. They have made strident influence on the conservative movement, where the popular conservatives, on radio, TV, newspapers, ect., basically toe the line with the neocons.

Mark is not afraid to defend the welfare state, and you can see, esp. with his foreign policy that he has been influenced by the neocon permeation. If he's not an all-out neocon, what he is? He's not a traditional conservative. Nor would he be labeled part of the Old Right. He's a modern conservative, i.e., one that has been demonstrably influenced by the neocon movement. I call him a neocon because it would be an insult to other conservatives to call him something he def. is not.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke