NationStates Jolt Archive

Not really. Just aware of what America stands to lose. And no, it's not some dreamy vision of a fundamentalist Christian America - far from it.

In today's WSJ, there was an op-ed that covered what my reasons for supporting the "war on terror" are. Sure, it's vaguely defined, but our enemies are dispersed, decentralized, and wish to remain vaguely defined - it's their only chance to survive.

We can argue whether it was right to invade Afghanistan, or Iraq, or do certain security procedures. We can argue about what the solution might be (or if there is one). But we can't really argue about what they really want - if their "ideal" state that they set up for a time in Afghanistan is any indication - a world where the religious police kill people every day for the most minor of religious infractions.

"When I was 19, I moved to New York City. . . . If you had asked me to describe myself then, I would have told you I was a musician, an artist and, on a somewhat political level, a woman, a lesbian and a Jew. Being an American wouldn't have made my list. On Sept. 11, all that changed. I realized that I had been taking the freedoms I have here for granted. Now I have an American flag on my backpack, I cheer at the fighter jets as they pass overhead and I am calling myself a patriot."

-- Rachel Newman, "My Turn" in Newsweek, Oct. 21, 2001

"Here's a puzzle: Why is it so frequently the case that the people who have the most at stake in the battle against Islamic extremism and the most to lose when Islamism gains -- namely, liberals -- are typically the most reluctant to fight it?

It is often said, particularly in the "progressive" precincts of the democratic left, that by aiming at the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and perhaps the Capitol, Mohammed Atta and his cohorts were registering a broader Muslim objection to what those buildings supposedly represented: capitalism and globalization, U.S. military power, support for Israel, oppression of the Palestinians and so on.

But maybe Ms. Newman intuited that Atta's real targets weren't the symbols of American mightiness, but of what that mightiness protected: people like her, bohemian, sexually unorthodox, a minority within a minority. Maybe she understood that those F-16s overhead -- likely manned by pilots who went to church on Sunday and voted the straight GOP ticket -- were being flown above all for her defense, at the outer cultural perimeter of everything that America's political order permits..."

Which is why it's important to know my views on things like sexuality, marriage, abortion, religion in school, and other topics (where I take a decidedly "liberal" viewpoint) - I'm interested in protecting our freedom to live as we choose as opposed to either death or dhimmitude in a religious police state.

Wow, to think you have the same basic views as most people you argue against!

Wow, to think you have the same basic views as most people you argue against!

This surprises you? One cannot argue persuasively for greater freedoms, such as that to possess weapons, without a good grounding in the philosophies of liberty - and anyone who has such a good grounding, unless they are utterly subsumed by some contrary belief, cannot help but be seduced by them.

To be honest, Deep Kimchi, you are not very conservative at all. If people call you a neo-con, it is probably in a perjorative context. They're trying to insult you, and probably don't know what it means.

According to this site, you are more of a Republican Conservative...

Neo-Con or Neo-Conservative
As a rule, the term refers more to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and with Commentary and The Weekly Standard than to more traditional conservative policy think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation or periodicals such as Policy Review or National Review. The Neo-Conservatives, often dubbed the Neo-Cons by supporters and critics alike, are credited with or blamed for influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) and George W. Bush (2001–present). Neo-Conservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a Neo-Conservative initiative.

(text below taken from stopthelie.com - read the home page entirely to grasp the full scope of Neo-Conservatism)

Real Republicans, take note: There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between "Conservative Republican Values" and "Neo-Conservative Values."

Conservative Republicans: STRONGLY favor protecting our civil liberties - Truly American
Neo-Conservatives: See our civil liberties as an unnecessary restriction on government power.

Conservative Republicans: STRONGLY favor a smaller, less intrusive government- Truly American
Neo-Conservatives: Are Willing to spend money (and expand government reach) without restraint, provided it helps them further their agenda.

Conservative Republicans: STRONGLY favor Fiscal Responsibility and reducing taxes - GOOD FOR AMERICA
Neo-Conservatives: Fool the public into thinking a "tax cut" (Paid for with PRINTED MONEY) is actually beneficial, hiding the fact that it amounts to little more than a loan that the taxpayer (or their children) will have to repay WITH INTEREST.

from: http://martiallaw911.info/glossary.htm

In the end, these terms are useless because they are labels. While they may identify somebody across a broad range of categories, it is entirely possible for that individual to hold opinions contrary to that label on an equal number of positions.

NEOCON WARNING!

the above post is as irrelevant as it is pointless, please ignore:p

Neocon? Nah ... you're not evil enough. Conservative? Meh ... in some things, yeah, but in others, nah.

You've already expressed enough liberal views on polyamory and homosexuality and whatnot to prove you're not a neocon.

If I had to venture a guess, I'd say you're a Conservative Libertarian.

Neocon? Nah ... you're not evil enough. Conservative? Meh ... in some things, yeah, but in others, nah.

You've already expressed enough liberal views on polyamory and homosexuality and whatnot to prove you're not a neocon.

If I had to venture a guess, I'd say you're a Conservative Libertarian.

And hash smoking. We could probably have a party and have a good time together.

'A muslim hurt me(done something etc.) so all muslims must die' attitude creates an american hurt me so all americans must die attitude and thats what people are against.
You can't accept the terror seperate from the community that gave birth to it. You want to destroy a culture that gave spawn to a monster but yours has created monsters of it as well. If thats the idea after WW2 all germans should have been genetically eliminated, much or less ever race, religion etc has its fascist past when in power.
Does this justify their complete elimination? That justifies complete annihilation all human race!

Not really. Just aware of what America stands to lose. And no, it's not some dreamy vision of a fundamentalist Christian America - far from it.

In today's WSJ, there was an op-ed that covered what my reasons for supporting the "war on terror" are. Sure, it's vaguely defined, but our enemies are dispersed, decentralized, and wish to remain vaguely defined - it's their only chance to survive.

We can argue whether it was right to invade Afghanistan, or Iraq, or do certain security procedures. We can argue about what the solution might be (or if there is one). But we can't really argue about what they really want - if their "ideal" state that they set up for a time in Afghanistan is any indication - a world where the religious police kill people every day for the most minor of religious infractions.



Which is why it's important to know my views on things like sexuality, marriage, abortion, religion in school, and other topics (where I take a decidedly "liberal" viewpoint) - I'm interested in protecting our freedom to live as we choose as opposed to either death or dhimmitude in a religious police state.

Gawd I hope we arent all expected to start threads defending whether or not we are neocons and then link to blogs with similar viewpoints to our own. If it's required I suppose I will do it but I'd much prefer to send indiviual telegrams to those calling me a neocon or liberal or what have you.

I've always figured the better label for what are called Neo-Conservatives would be Pseudo-Conservatives, or maybe Semi-Conservatives. Or maybe just opportunists.

That justifies complete annihilation all human race!

From a technical standpoint, that would work, you know. World peace, and all that.

And hash smoking. We could probably have a party and have a good time together.
Like getting really high and marrying an entire football team? Been there, done that. It's not nearly as fun as it sounds, and just breaks down into arguments about who has to do the family laundry.

Not really. Just aware of what America stands to lose. And no, it's not some dreamy vision of a fundamentalist Christian America - far from it.

In today's WSJ, there was an op-ed that covered what my reasons for supporting the "war on terror" are. Sure, it's vaguely defined, but our enemies are dispersed, decentralized, and wish to remain vaguely defined - it's their only chance to survive.

We can argue whether it was right to invade Afghanistan, or Iraq, or do certain security procedures. We can argue about what the solution might be (or if there is one). But we can't really argue about what they really want - if their "ideal" state that they set up for a time in Afghanistan is any indication - a world where the religious police kill people every day for the most minor of religious infractions.



Which is why it's important to know my views on things like sexuality, marriage, abortion, religion in school, and other topics (where I take a decidedly "liberal" viewpoint) - I'm interested in protecting our freedom to live as we choose as opposed to either death or dhimmitude in a religious police state.


So your position, agreement with the neocons which you wish to be considered distinct from, is best illustrated by stereotypes and superficial reasoning? Sounds about right to me.

The term neo-con was invented by a group of pundits as a way to not say 'Jew.'

It's orrigins are actually anti-semitic. That's not what it means today, but then again, it doesn't mean anything today except "evil republican." So, it's still basically a hateful term.

Many people who are called neo-cons, the christian right as one example, are really Regan Republicans, because Regan changed the policies of the Republican party for the worse. Most republicans are actually opposed to trhe Regan Republican mentality, but they get labeled with it anyway, especially because of the Christain elements taking so much power in the party.

HERE'S TO McCain or Giuliani IN '08!!! Bring us back to freedom loving conservativism!!!