NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just wondering what your opinoins are on this, hopefully they will learn the lesson eventually that the neocons have destroyed the party, (Bush, McCain etc.). Will they take the defeat of McCain's Presidential run as a hint from the citizens of the US that they need to straighten up their act and become a true conservative, and/or constituionalist party, or will they never learn?

they wont throw them out. they cant afford to.

but they need to get their heads out of their asses and stop this crazy ideologue thing they have going. without centrists they are doomed.

they wont throw them out. they cant afford to.

but they need to get their heads out of their asses and stop this crazy ideologue thing they have going. without centrists they are doomed.
I think we've seen pretty clearly that neocons will not tolerate sharing a club with real centrists, because the contrast will show up the falsity of their claims to be centrists themselves.

I think the Republican party should toss out both the neocons and the religious right. Those two groups both represent views so extremely at odds with the traditional platform of the Republican party that they just cannot be made to fit. Properly, they should each be their own party. As it is, they were only taken on for short term political purposes anyway. The Reps courted the religious right to exploit an untapped vote source, but it has never been a stable or comfortable fit. And the neocons flipped that trick by finagling their way into the Rep party to exploit that huge vote source and pre-established political power base which they could never have done as their own party (a trick the left-wing minority parties in the US never thought to try with the Dems).

I say chuck them both, now that we have seen the limits of their ability to sway the main population. However, I doubt the Republican party will chuck them any time soon.

EDIT: Also, Ash, they can't stop "this crazy idealogue thing" -- neocons ARE idealogues. It's actually not just an act with those people. The only way for the party to stop it is to chuck them out.

Bush Mccain are not neo cons.
Neo cons are the non religious elements of the republicans party.
they are former democrats hence the term neo con since they are new conservatives.
bush and Mccain are paleo cons.

The Republicans who aren't happy with the neocons or religious right have to leave and found a new party. The crazies won't leave, and can't be kicked out.

I think we've seen pretty clearly that neocons will not tolerate sharing a club with real centrists, because the contrast will show up the falsity of their claims to be centrists themselves.

I think the Republican party should toss out both the neocons and the religious right. Those two groups both represent views so extremely at odds with the traditional platform of the Republican party that they just cannot be made to fit. Properly, they should each be their own party. As it is, they were only taken on for short term political purposes anyway. The Reps courted the religious right to exploit an untapped vote source, but it has never been a stable or comfortable fit. And the neocons flipped that trick by finagling their way into the Rep party to exploit that huge vote source and pre-established political power base which they could never have done as their own party (a trick the left-wing minority parties in the US never thought to try with the Dems).

I say chuck them both, now that we have seen the limits of their ability to sway the main population. However, I doubt the Republican party will chuck them any time soon.

EDIT: Also, Ash, they can't stop "this crazy idealogue thing" -- neocons ARE idealogues. It's actually not just an act with those people. The only way for the party to stop it is to chuck them out.
oh i know but if you chuck out the neocons and the religious right, what do you have left?

the libertarians and the racists. that isnt enough to win elections with.

and that IS why they are screwed, eh? they are too much ideologues to widen their base to moderately conservative people of all stripes. their base wont put up with it and their mouthpieces (like rush limbaugh) wont put up with it.

The Republicans who aren't happy with the neocons or religious right have to leave and found a new party. The crazies won't leave, and can't be kicked out.

US politics really, really needs 4 parties...

US politics really, really needs 4 parties...

Yup: One united Democratic one and the Republican Party divided in three and unable to ever get anywhere close to the White House ever again. It would be delightful.

Yup: One united Democratic one and the Republican Party divided in three and unable to ever get anywhere close to the White House ever again. It would be delightful.

After Prop 8, the gays may need their own party.

Obama isn't going to help them - he's said many times it's solely up to the individual states.

Which means he gives a rat's ass what rights gays get.

See?

After Prop 8, the gays may need their own party.

Obama isn't going to help them - he's said many times it's solely up to the individual states.

Which means he gives a rat's ass what rights gays get.

See?

Again: I care about getting out of Iraq and stopping the dickwaving policies. Prop 8 will fall with time regardless, and McCain would actively have backed it.

It’s funny, I was thinking a very similar thing this morning. After the election, a lot of the far right “conservatives” began discussing “getting back to their roots”. They discussed things like RINOs, “not true conservatives”, and how “republican” had stopped meaning “conservative” and if they really wanted to win elections, they needed to get back to their conservative base philosophies.

Except the problem with that is I’m unsure when republicans were EVER at the “conservative base philosophies” so I’m unsure how they plan to return to them, and why they think that will help them win elections if they did. The only thing close to “real” conservatives in the last 50 years was Goldwater, who got royally schlacked. They try to point to Regan, but despite being truer to the “conservative” ideology than Bush, Bush, Dole, or McCain, was still, at his core, a sloppy mess of military interventionalist, bloated deficit spending, poor economic policies, and was an advocate of National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, a “carrot and the stick” approach to enforcing a national drinking age that was one of the most debilitating blows to the concept of states rights.

As much as conservatives might want to talk about “getting back to basics” and winning elections, there’s never been a clear example of a true conservative in the last 60 years of American politics actually winning a presidential election. The fact is, the American people, as a whole, don’t seem to care much for conservative ideologies, which has forced the conservative side to create an alliance of what we now see as the modern Republican party. Strange bedfellows indeed, as the religious right and the war hawk neo-cons seem utterly inconsistent with the “starve the beast” and personal freedom mantra of the conservative movement.

Most damning of all, the “kick the bums out!” calls by “true conservatives” rings all the more hollow when, despite their criticisms of Bush and McCain, the ultimate fact is, these were the people the party chose. These were the people that won the party’s support. Claims of “he’s not a true conservative!” sound silly and petulant when all those conservatives turned out in droves to vote for Bush, twice. It could be said that they weren’t willfully doing so, just dupes who fell for the whole “compassionate conservative”, “uniter not a divider” schpiel. The first time. But they really have no excuse for voting for the man the second time around. Terms like “conservative” have no real meaning, other than a self referential one. Conservative means what people who call themselves conservative define it as. And the conservative men of choice were Bush and McCain.

The Neo-Cons are just a bunch of liberals (In this case, referring to the International Relations group of liberals, completely separate from liberals in every other sense of the word) who organized under the same banner, and got a few credible academics to give them a new name. They can't be kicked out, because they aren't really all that present. I rather doubt that the Republicans really want to become the party of realists (again, nothing to do with reality, IR scholars just give things terrible names), so I rather expect that the status quo will remain.

Of course, much of the Bush Doctorine has had little or nothing to do with his views regarding IR, and I expect that when the current civil war ends, we will find that either his paleo-conservative policies have been jettisoned, or his fundamentalist ones have.

I'm not counting out the jingoistic pricks of America yet. I think they will come back to pounce on this country one more time like a downed movie monster, at least once. From all the goofy assed, baseless rhetoric that widely gets tossed around, I don't imagine they have magically vanished.

Between twenty and forty years from now the Republican party will be completely reconstructed and the wealthy will no longer wield the influence they once did. This is a real plan and I will say no more about it.

Between twenty and forty years from now the Republican party will be completely reconstructed and the wealthy will no longer wield the influence they once did. This is a real plan and I will say no more about it.

Between two and three weeks from now, everybody will have Ranma's curse, and some women will become sexy elf ladies. This is a real plan and I will say no more about it.

>.>

Between two and three weeks from now, everybody will have Ranma's curse, and some women will become sexy elf ladies. This is a real plan and I will say no more about it.

>.>

"You don't believe me, Dr. Jones? You will, Dr. Jones. You will become a true believer"

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n302/mrdiff/More%20Brad/MolaRam3.jpg

oh i know but if you chuck out the neocons and the religious right, what do you have left?

the libertarians and the racists. that isnt enough to win elections with.

and that IS why they are screwed, eh? they are too much ideologues to widen their base to moderately conservative people of all stripes. their base wont put up with it and their mouthpieces (like rush limbaugh) wont put up with it.
No, there are still a few fiscal conservatives (as opposed to social "conservatives", i.e. reactionaries) as well as actual centrists. The kind who actually do work across the aisle with the Democrats.

If I were on the Republican Party, I would take this time, the next 4 years, to cleanse and renew the image of my party.

If I were on the Republican Party, I would take this time, the next 4 years, to cleanse and renew the image of my party.

Agreed.

I'm just wondering what your opinoins are on this, hopefully they will learn the lesson eventually that the neocons have destroyed the party, (Bush, McCain etc.). Will they take the defeat of McCain's Presidential run as a hint from the citizens of the US that they need to straighten up their act and become a true conservative, and/or constituionalist party, or will they never learn?

"Neocons" were a result of the Democratic Party losing the 1994 congressional elections-that's where the term came from, at any rate, and it was originally applied to the guys that switched their party affiiliation that year, then proceeded to shift their rhetoric hard-right while pursuing the same agendas they'd pursued as Democrats.

Now that the Republicans have lost control of congress, the Senate, and the Presidency, they're likely to go "Home" on their own.

"You don't believe me, Dr. Jones? You will, Dr. Jones. You will become a true believer"

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n302/mrdiff/More%20Brad/MolaRam3.jpg

Do you expect me to talk?

Wait, wrong movie...

It’s funny, I was thinking a very similar thing this morning. After the election, a lot of the far right “conservatives” began discussing “getting back to their roots”. They discussed things like RINOs, “not true conservatives”, and how “republican” had stopped meaning “conservative” and if they really wanted to win elections, they needed to get back to their conservative base philosophies.

Except the problem with that is I’m unsure when republicans were EVER at the “conservative base philosophies” so I’m unsure how they plan to return to them, and why they think that will help them win elections if they did. The only thing close to “real” conservatives in the last 50 years was Goldwater, who got royally schlacked. They try to point to Regan, but despite being truer to the “conservative” ideology than Bush, Bush, Dole, or McCain, was still, at his core, a sloppy mess of military interventionalist, bloated deficit spending, poor economic policies, and was an advocate of National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, a “carrot and the stick” approach to enforcing a national drinking age that was one of the most debilitating blows to the concept of states rights.

As much as conservatives might want to talk about “getting back to basics” and winning elections, there’s never been a clear example of a true conservative in the last 60 years of American politics actually winning a presidential election. The fact is, the American people, as a whole, don’t seem to care much for conservative ideologies, which has forced the conservative side to create an alliance of what we now see as the modern Republican party. Strange bedfellows indeed, as the religious right and the war hawk neo-cons seem utterly inconsistent with the “starve the beast” and personal freedom mantra of the conservative movement.

Most damning of all, the “kick the bums out!” calls by “true conservatives” rings all the more hollow when, despite their criticisms of Bush and McCain, the ultimate fact is, these were the people the party chose. These were the people that won the party’s support. Claims of “he’s not a true conservative!” sound silly and petulant when all those conservatives turned out in droves to vote for Bush, twice. It could be said that they weren’t willfully doing so, just dupes who fell for the whole “compassionate conservative”, “uniter not a divider” schpiel. The first time. But they really have no excuse for voting for the man the second time around. Terms like “conservative” have no real meaning, other than a self referential one. Conservative means what people who call themselves conservative define it as. And the conservative men of choice were Bush and McCain.
This.

Also, do you mean to imply that the Republicans are just as big of a cobbled-together mess as the Democrats? Why, the Mephisto you say, you...you...why, you... :D

Actually, I have heard convincing arguments among political historians (many sources, many people, many years, so don't ask for any links) that, in general, the American people trend towards centrist progressivism. They are neither 100% Republican nor 100% Democrat in their outlook, but individuals leaning in either direction will usually feel most comfortable with social and economic policies that can be described as progressive -- if "progressive" is understood as a pragmatic approach to social fairness. The result tends to be that, regardless of what the parties may think their platforms should be or who their bases are, the majority of voters, no matter which party they end up supporting in any given election, will demand a mix of the approaches of both parties in government policy.

Bush Mccain are not neo cons.
Neo cons are the non religious elements of the republicans party.
they are former democrats hence the term neo con since they are new conservatives.
bush and Mccain are paleo cons.

Neocons are not former democrats. We are a group of conservatives that oppose totalitarianism abroad and at home. We are hawkish on the subject of totalitarianism and human rights. Our movement arose in reaction to Stalin.

Although neoconservatives believe that no government has the right to violate the individual's right to freedom of conscience, we are not the group that necessarily is anti-abortion. I, as it so happens, think abortions are ok.

Neocons are not former democrats. We are a group of conservatives that oppose totalitarianism abroad and at home. We are hawkish on the subject of totalitarianism and human rights. Our movement arose in reaction to Stalin.

Sieptima Luna, quieres divertir-te un rato?

Siete Lunas, quieres divertir-te un rato?

Vale! Pero lo hacemos tan pronto regrese de mi reunión. ;)

Neocons are not former democrats. We are a group of conservatives that oppose totalitarianism abroad and at home. We are hawkish on the subject of totalitarianism and human rights. Our movement arose in reaction to Stalin.


The problem with that bit of revisionist history is that if the cold war taught us anything, it's that neo-cons were quite happy with tin pot dictators. Just not communist ones.

Vale! Pero lo hacemos tan pronto regrese de mi reunión. ;)

Vale, después jugamos... :)

I think it is interesting that people keep saying that Republicans need to be more Centrist. Well, lets look at how Centrist Republicans have Fared.

New England: The Home of Centrist Republicans elected NO Centrist Republicans to the Senate, and the ones in the House lost their seats (there are now NO Republicans out of New England)
Nationwide: A Centrist Senator got the vote for the President, and only began to close with Obama after choosing a Conservative who got the Conservatives interested in voting, until he began to once again alienate the base.

In fact, election turnout this year was exactly the same, numerically at least, as 2004. In terms of which side turned out more, most Conservatives stayed home to protest what they saw as the Mainstream Media (MSNBC and CNN in particular) interfering in the Primaries to get the candidate that the MEDIA wanted for the Republicans.

Then, McCain refused to stand up for Palin and really go after Obama on Judgment (Ayers, Rezcko, Wright, Biden, etc.), and called out Palin when she did so, despite the fact that she was closing in on Obama in terms of Turnout.

So, why did the Republicans lose? Because they chose a man who turned off the base enough that they stayed home in protest.

If a more Conservative candidate (or even a Centrist who WASN'T a Senator) had been up there and talked about what he believed and WHY it would work and his opponent's plan wouldn't, then he would have won.

That was the primary problem with the Candidate. He was a Centrist Senator who had helped to curtail Free Speech (McCain-Feingold) and had decided that enforcement of the law was not necessary (McCain-Kennedy) in the eyes of the base. While we respected him for his stance on Iraq, we looked at how Bi-Partisan he was, and we felt like he was Democrat Lite, and many of us decided to stay home.

On the other hand, Centrist Democrats had hard fights against Conservative Republicans, and even the Far Left Democrats of California had fights on their hands in some districts.

And yet, we still managed to get 46% of the vote with MUCH less money and less turnout by the Conservatives. I guarantee you that if it had been Romney in McCain's place, the fact that he is a Governor and thus will at least attack his opponent would have resulted in a win.

If we choose Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin for our candidate in 2012, we will win the election. Not because he has Indian Ancestry or Because she is a Woman, but because the two of them know what they believe, and hold firm to that.

And no, it isn't racism or Jingoism. It is that America is a great nation, and that it was made as such because of our Economic, Political, Religious, and Personal Freedoms, and that Big Government (and High Taxes on the Michael Phelps of the Economy) only drag this country down.

I think it is interesting that people keep saying that Republicans need to be more Centrist. Well, lets look at how Centrist Republicans have Fared.

New England: The Home of Centrist Republicans elected NO Centrist Republicans to the Senate, and the ones in the House lost their seats (there are now NO Republicans out of New England)
Nationwide: A Centrist Senator got the vote for the President, and only began to close with Obama after choosing a Conservative who got the Conservatives interested in voting, until he began to once again alienate the base.

In fact, election turnout this year was exactly the same, numerically at least, as 2004. In terms of which side turned out more, most Conservatives stayed home to protest what they saw as the Mainstream Media (MSNBC and CNN in particular) interfering in the Primaries to get the candidate that the MEDIA wanted for the Republicans.

Then, McCain refused to stand up for Palin and really go after Obama on Judgment (Ayers, Rezcko, Wright, Biden, etc.), and called out Palin when she did so, despite the fact that she was closing in on Obama in terms of Turnout.

So, why did the Republicans lose? Because they chose a man who turned off the base enough that they stayed home in protest.

If a more Conservative candidate (or even a Centrist who WASN'T a Senator) had been up there and talked about what he believed and WHY it would work and his opponent's plan wouldn't, then he would have won.

That was the primary problem with the Candidate. He was a Centrist Senator who had helped to curtail Free Speech (McCain-Feingold) and had decided that enforcement of the law was not necessary (McCain-Kennedy) in the eyes of the base. While we respected him for his stance on Iraq, we looked at how Bi-Partisan he was, and we felt like he was Democrat Lite, and many of us decided to stay home.

On the other hand, Centrist Democrats had hard fights against Conservative Republicans, and even the Far Left Democrats of California had fights on their hands in some districts.

And yet, we still managed to get 46% of the vote with MUCH less money and less turnout by the Conservatives. I guarantee you that if it had been Romney in McCain's place, the fact that he is a Governor and thus will at least attack his opponent would have resulted in a win.

If we choose Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin for our candidate in 2012, we will win the election. Not because he has Indian Ancestry or Because she is a Woman, but because the two of them know what they believe, and hold firm to that.

And no, it isn't racism or Jingoism. It is that America is a great nation, and that it was made as such because of our Economic, Political, Religious, and Personal Freedoms, and that Big Government (and High Taxes on the Michael Phelps of the Economy) only drag this country down.


So...so...SO much revisionist history in this post. Much of it very recent history.


I never understood why you would make up shit about very recent events that are clearly not true. Everyone can call you on it.


I must go to class. If someone hasnt eaten you alive when I get back, Ill do the honors.

The problem with that bit of revisionist history is that if the cold war taught us anything, it's that neo-cons were quite happy with tin pot dictators. Just not communist ones.
True that. In fact, the more fascist the tin-pot dictator, the better the neocons seemed and still seem to like it. And considering that, at the time of Stalin, there effectively was no group calling themselves "conservatives" in the US (the conservative movement began in the 60s with people like Goldwater, according to conservatives who were there at the time, like John Dean), I fail to see how there could have been "neoconservatives" in the US before there were "conservatives."

If we choose Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin for our candidate in 2012, we will win the election. Not because he has Indian Ancestry or Because she is a Woman, but because the two of them know what they believe, and hold firm to that.

They "know what they believe?" Yeah. So do schizophrenics. I know what the likes of Palin believe too, and it's bloody daft.

So...so...SO much revisionist history in this post. Much of it very recent history.


I never understood why you would make up shit about very recent events that are clearly not true. Everyone can call you on it.


I must go to class. If someone hasnt eaten you alive when I get back, Ill do the honors.

So in other words, I am not allowed my opinion on the matter because you disagree with it?

I have to be silenced because you don't like what I have to say?

And because I dare to speak up in this liberal haven, I am too be eviscerated as thoroughly as Joe the Plumber when he dared to call out Obama on his Tax Plan to Punish those who Work Harder?

I would say that it is a dangerous precedent you espouse there my friend, and one that shall make this country even more of a tinderbox than it already is.

They "know what they believe?" Yeah. So do schizophrenics. I know what the likes of Palin believe too, and it's bloody daft.

Actually, I don't think schizophrenics do. Maybe psychotics?

So in other words, I am not allowed my opinion on the matter because you disagree with it?

I have to be silenced because you don't like what I have to say?

And because I dare to speak up in this liberal haven, I am too be eviscerated as thoroughly as Joe the Plumber when he dared to call out Obama on his Tax Plan to Punish those who Work Harder?

I would say that it is a dangerous precedent you espouse there my friend, and one that shall make this country even more of a tinderbox than it already is.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThePesci

Called it!

They "know what they believe?" Yeah. So do schizophrenics. I know what the likes of Palin believe too, and it's bloody daft.

Believing that America is the Great Country in the world is Daft? Believing that human life is sacred is daft? Believing that getting Government out of the way and off of the back of the people is daft? Believing that Higher Taxes hurt the economy and that Lower Taxes bring in more revenue from a stronger economy is daft? Believing in God is daft?

Well then, I sir, am proudly daft!

I sir, am proudly daft!

I see.

So, why did the Republicans lose? Because they chose a man who turned off the base enough that they stayed home in protest.

Again the make believe fantasy land of the republican right. The fact is, that republican beliefs are so far off the "center" that you can't simultaneously do both at the same time.

Sure, Palin is beloved by the right. Unfortunately, the rest hate her. We're roughly a country of thirds. One third on the right, one third on the left, one third more or less in the middle.

You can't win in this country by attracting your base, you MUST pick up people in the center lines. Something that republicans who call for Palin to lead don't seem to understand, a crucial fact they'll just have to live with.

They're in the minority. And you don't win elections by appealing to the beliefs of a minority of voters.

It’s funny, I was thinking a very similar thing this morning. After the election, a lot of the far right “conservatives” began discussing “getting back to their roots”. They discussed things like RINOs, “not true conservatives”, and how “republican” had stopped meaning “conservative” and if they really wanted to win elections, they needed to get back to their conservative base philosophies.

Except the problem with that is I’m unsure when republicans were EVER at the “conservative base philosophies” so I’m unsure how they plan to return to them, and why they think that will help them win elections if they did. The only thing close to “real” conservatives in the last 50 years was Goldwater, who got royally schlacked. They try to point to Regan, but despite being truer to the “conservative” ideology than Bush, Bush, Dole, or McCain, was still, at his core, a sloppy mess of military interventionalist, bloated deficit spending, poor economic policies, and was an advocate of National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, a “carrot and the stick” approach to enforcing a national drinking age that was one of the most debilitating blows to the concept of states rights.

As much as conservatives might want to talk about “getting back to basics” and winning elections, there’s never been a clear example of a true conservative in the last 60 years of American politics actually winning a presidential election. The fact is, the American people, as a whole, don’t seem to care much for conservative ideologies, which has forced the conservative side to create an alliance of what we now see as the modern Republican party. Strange bedfellows indeed, as the religious right and the war hawk neo-cons seem utterly inconsistent with the “starve the beast” and personal freedom mantra of the conservative movement.

Most damning of all, the “kick the bums out!” calls by “true conservatives” rings all the more hollow when, despite their criticisms of Bush and McCain, the ultimate fact is, these were the people the party chose. These were the people that won the party’s support. Claims of “he’s not a true conservative!” sound silly and petulant when all those conservatives turned out in droves to vote for Bush, twice. It could be said that they weren’t willfully doing so, just dupes who fell for the whole “compassionate conservative”, “uniter not a divider” schpiel. The first time. But they really have no excuse for voting for the man the second time around. Terms like “conservative” have no real meaning, other than a self referential one. Conservative means what people who call themselves conservative define it as. And the conservative men of choice were Bush and McCain.

I liked this post. I am a conservative and a neoconservative. This is the story of people like me: we vote for our favorite candidates in the primary and we lose. Then we get these lousy vaguely conservative candidates that we do not get all that excited about. However, as bad as these folks are, they are at least more conservative than the democratic candidates. McCain was my least favorite choice because I see him as a republican in name only. I liked Thompson and Romney a heck of a lot better.

I hope that we could get a candidate that reflected my values better than Bush and McCain. Although there are things I like about each, it was not so much that I voted for Bush and McCain as that I voted against Kerry and Obama.

You are absolutely correct that "conservative" means different things to different people. I view conservatism as equivalent to libertarianism. However, a lot of people confuse the term for the goals of the Republican party. Some of these goals are libertarian but a lot of them (particularly from the moral majority folks are anti-libertarian (abortion for example). Some people also see neoconservatism as conservatism. Neoconservatism is not conservatism. Neoconservatism is the use of military force or the threat thereof to oppose totalitarianism.

Believing that America is the Great Country in the world is Daft?

Well, that's just hubris, and it's arrogant, and stereotypical, and untrue in a lot of ways - so yes, it's daft.

But I was referring to Palin's more charming examples of personal idiocies. The "Palinisms" if you will that indicate, to me, that the woman hasn't a brain.

Believing that human life is sacred is daft? Believing that getting Government out of the way and off of the back of the people is daft? Believing that Higher Taxes hurt the economy and that Lower Taxes bring in more revenue from a stronger economy is daft? Believing in God is daft?

Burning strawmen is daft.

Capitalizing random words that don't need or even allow for capitalization is daft.

Did I mention the part about strawmen?

Well then, I sir, am proudly daft!

Yayz! Can I has cheeseburger?

Your wrong on that one. You win by appealing to the largest minority in the world. The Individual. You tell the individual why the government has hurt them and what you will do to get Government out of the way and off their backs, and sadly you will lose these days.

Alexander Tytler and Benjamin Franklin where right on this at least.

We are marching ever forward into the chains of Dependency, and from their back into Bondage. And Jefferson had this one exactly right. "Any government powerful enough to give you everything you want, is powerful enough to take away your rights."

I think it is interesting that people keep saying that Republicans need to be more Centrist. Well, lets look at how Centrist Republicans have Fared.

New England: The Home of Centrist Republicans elected NO Centrist Republicans to the Senate, and the ones in the House lost their seats (there are now NO Republicans out of New England)
That's called a backlash. The majority in New England opted for the "vote the bastards out" approach to send a message to the party of their displeasure with its policies. Centrist republicans suffered because they are republicans, not because they are centrist. Trust me, if they had been more hard right in New England, they'd have lost their seats long ago.

Nationwide: A Centrist Senator got the vote for the President, and only began to close with Obama after choosing a Conservative who got the Conservatives interested in voting, until he began to once again alienate the base.
And that accounts, I suppose, for all the solid conservative politicians, writers, and idealogues who declared Palin unfit for the VP office and denounced the choice of her as harming both the campaign and the party. I suppose her strong popularity with the republican base accounts for why the majority of republican voters who went with McCain or a third party candidate stated in polls that dislike of Sarah Palin was one of the leading reasons they abandoned their party this time around.

In fact, election turnout this year was exactly the same, numerically at least, as 2004. In terms of which side turned out more, most Conservatives stayed home to protest what they saw as the Mainstream Media (MSNBC and CNN in particular) interfering in the Primaries to get the candidate that the MEDIA wanted for the Republicans.
What the fuck are you talking about? Please, please, please, post ANYTHING that could indicate where you got such a notion from.

Then, McCain refused to stand up for Palin and really go after Obama on Judgment (Ayers, Rezcko, Wright, Biden, etc.), and called out Palin when she did so, despite the fact that she was closing in on Obama in terms of Turnout.
A) Every time she opened her mouth, negative reaction among republicans mounted, the effect getting worse as the campaign went on. Every single poll indicated this over and over again.

B) Her "really going after" Obama led to death threats and calls for violence. Inciting violence is illegal. Inciting violence against a public official is REALLY illegal. THAT is why McCain had her tone it down -- after he was told to himself by the Secret Service.

So, why did the Republicans lose? Because they chose a man who turned off the base enough that they stayed home in protest.
So you think the margin could have been overcome if all those base members you imagine existing had turned out? Please present your numbers in support of that claim. I would be very interested to know just how many of the base there are in this country -- considering that for 8 years, every single analysis has had the number hovering around 25-30% of the voting population.

If a more Conservative candidate (or even a Centrist who WASN'T a Senator) had been up there and talked about what he believed and WHY it would work and his opponent's plan wouldn't, then he would have won.

That was the primary problem with the Candidate. He was a Centrist Senator who had helped to curtail Free Speech (McCain-Feingold) and had decided that enforcement of the law was not necessary (McCain-Kennedy) in the eyes of the base. While we respected him for his stance on Iraq, we looked at how Bi-Partisan he was, and we felt like he was Democrat Lite, and many of us decided to stay home.

On the other hand, Centrist Democrats had hard fights against Conservative Republicans, and even the Far Left Democrats of California had fights on their hands in some districts.
Again, I would very much like to see some supporting data for this -- for future reference.

And yet, we still managed to get 46% of the vote with MUCH less money and less turnout by the Conservatives. I guarantee you that if it had been Romney in McCain's place, the fact that he is a Governor and thus will at least attack his opponent would have resulted in a win.

If we choose Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin for our candidate in 2012, we will win the election. Not because he has Indian Ancestry or Because she is a Woman, but because the two of them know what they believe, and hold firm to that.
I would tend to agree with the above, though perhaps not quite for the reasons you give. This is why I would like to see your data in support of your remarks about how many conservatives did not vote this time, so my side can plan effectively to prevent you from winning next time.

And no, it isn't racism or Jingoism. It is that America is a great nation, and that it was made as such because of our Economic, Political, Religious, and Personal Freedoms, and that Big Government (and High Taxes on the Michael Phelps of the Economy) only drag this country down.
Closing flourish is somewhat pretty, but not very meaningful. Still, it's nice that you made an attempt for style points.

Between twenty and forty years from now the Republican party will be completely reconstructed and the wealthy will no longer wield the influence they once did. This is a real plan and I will say no more about it.

Yeah because the deomcrats will destroy wealth or move it offshore! The democrats will only be happy when we are a turd world nation.

And Jefferson had this one exactly right. "Any government powerful enough to give you everything you want, is powerful enough to take away your rights."

Given knowledge he might have amended or added to it: "Any government powerful enough to obliterate most multicellular life on the planet with a barrage of nuclear missiles is powerful enough to take away your rights."

You don't get to support a party that advocates spending TRILLIONS on 'Defense' in Iraq, Afghanistan, the world's most well-funded military, the largest navy and then try to claim that you're an advocate of small government. It doesn't work like that.

Yeah because the deomcrats will destroy wealth or move it offshore! The democrats will only be happy when we are a turd world nation.

Misspelling of "third" or crappy attempt at a pun?

Regardless, you're being anti-American by criticizing the party of the President elect.

Your wrong on that one. You win by appealing to the largest minority in the world. The Individual. You tell the individual why the government has hurt them and what you will do to get Government out of the way and off their backs, and sadly you will lose these days.

Not at all, it’s a pretty damned good way to win, as this election proved. The problem is, however, conservatives usually get the roles of “who hurt us” and “who will help us” backwards

Under whose administration did we face a big economic problem, prior to the one we are in now? Regan/Bush Sr.

Under whose administration did the economy improve, and deficit turned to surplus? Clinton.

Under whose administration did the Clinton surplus vanish into a black hole of bloated spending, and blossomed into the worst financial disaster since the great depression? Bush Jr.

You’re absolutely right, telling the individual who caused the mess we’re in, and how to fix it is a great way to win elections. Unfortunately, Republicans lost their ability to go to the American people with the line of “we’ll fix this mess!” when the messes happen on their watch.

The problem with that bit of revisionist history is that if the cold war taught us anything, it's that neo-cons were quite happy with tin pot dictators. Just not communist ones.

No. We were not happy. It was just the better of two evils. I do not think that the idealistic neoconservatives were behind that as much as it was just a matter of realpolitick.

No. We were not happy. It was just the better of two evils. I do not think that the idealistic neoconservatives were behind that as much as it was just a matter of realpolitick.

Yes. Yes you were. No, it wasn't. There WAS no "two evils". America does not have the right to prop up dictatorships. PERIOD.

also amusingly enough, if you ignore the post convention bump, McCain ended up losing by a wider margin (7 points) than he was trailing Obama by pre Palin (3-4 points). You can try to claim all you want that Palin "saved McCain" by counting a well documented election cycle event, and ignoring the free fall that descended as soon as the woman started opening her mouth, but you can't ignore that the polls were closer pre Palin than they were on election day.

Your wrong on that one. You win by appealing to the largest minority in the world. The Individual. You tell the individual why the government has hurt them and what you will do to get Government out of the way and off their backs, and sadly you will lose these days.

Alexander Tytler and Benjamin Franklin where right on this at least.

We are marching ever forward into the chains of Dependency, and from their back into Bondage. And Jefferson had this one exactly right. "Any government powerful enough to give you everything you want, is powerful enough to take away your rights."
That doesn't sound like Jefferson's writing style.

It was just the better of two evils.

I think therein itself is a problem. If you think that any freedom crushing dictatorship is any time the lesser of any political evil, it pretty much demonstrates that your actions are not for any love of freedom and democracy, but a rabid fear of a particular ideology.

No. We were not happy. It was just the better of two evils. I do not think that the idealistic neoconservatives were behind that as much as it was just a matter of realpolitick.
If you're choosing one dictator over another as the lesser evil and choosing to support that dictator, you don't really get to claim you are fighting against totalitarianism.

That doesn't sound like Jefferson's writing style.

Ten bucks say it isn't.

That doesn't sound like Jefferson's writing style.

That's because it's Gerald Ford. A man who couldn't win an election on his own merits. A man, when election time came, lost in a land slide, to a Democrat. But let's not that stop an appeal to authority in action.

And the EXACT quote is:

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

If you're choosing one dictator over another as the lesser evil and choosing to support that dictator, you don't really get to claim you are fighting against totalitarianism.

Especially because Allende and Jango, to name two, were DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED!

Your wrong on that one. You win by appealing to the largest minority in the world. The Individual. You tell the individual why the government has hurt them and what you will do to get Government out of the way and off their backs, and sadly you will lose these days.

Alexander Tytler and Benjamin Franklin where right on this at least.

We are marching ever forward into the chains of Dependency, and from their back into Bondage. And Jefferson had this one exactly right. "Any government powerful enough to give you everything you want, is powerful enough to take away your rights."

I enjoy reading your posts. I believe that we have similar views.

That's because it's Gerald Ford.

YAY! Give me ten bucks, anyone?

I enjoy reading your posts. I believe that we have similar views.

Yeah, let's call them "views".

That's because it's Gerald Ford. A man who couldn't win an election on his own merits. A man, when election time came, lost in a land slide, to a Democrat. But let's not that stop an appeal to authority in action.

And the EXACT quote is:
To be honest, if the poster is going to say the things he's been saying, he might do better to claim to be quoting Yogi Berra. At least then, he'd be less obviously off.

To be honest, if the poster is going to say the things he's been saying, he might do better to claim to be quoting Yogi Berra. At least then, he'd be less obviously off.

the sad part is, Jefferson has a LOT of great quotes about freedom, responsibility, the role of limited government, and the necessity of defense against tyranny.

Why anyone would not actually USE one, and instead try to palm off something actually said by that stumblebum Ford is beyond me.

I think therein itself is a problem. If you think that any freedom crushing dictatorship is any time the lesser of any political evil, it pretty much demonstrates that your actions are not for any love of freedom and democracy, but a rabid fear of a particular ideology.

Which is why those nasty cold war allegiances were not an expression of neoconservatism. This is one of the reasons why I love what we did for Iraq. Saddam Hussein was an example of those nasty dictators that we supported (probably more for their opposition to Iran than the USSR but still it is the same idea) because he was an enemy of our enemy. Now we fought him and brought him to justice just because he was an A hole. Now that is about as neocon as it goes and I love it. If only George Bush would have gotten tough with the rest of the Axis of Evil and done away with them we would have had an even better freer world, but at elast he did something.

the sad part is, Jefferson has a LOT of great quotes about freedom, responsibility, the role of limited government, and the necessity of defense against tyranny.

Why anyone would not actually USE one, and instead try to palm off something actually said by that stumblebum Ford is beyond me.
Well, duh, because Jefferson said a lot more things against the poster's views than supportive of them, so if he had actually quoted the great TJ, we all could have buried him under a ton of other quotes.

Yes. Yes you were. No, it wasn't. There WAS no "two evils". America does not have the right to prop up dictatorships. PERIOD.
We agree on that. Maybe you are a neocon as well?

Which is why those nasty cold war allegiances were not an expression of neoconservatism. This is one of the reasons why I love what we did for Iraq. Saddam Hussein was an example of those nasty dictators that we supported (probably more for their opposition to Iran than the USSR but still it is the same idea) because he was an enemy of our enemy. Now we fought him and brought him to justice just because he was an A hole. Now that is about as neocon as it goes and I love it. If only George Bush would have gotten tough with the rest of the Axis of Evil and done away with them we would have had an even better freer world, but at elast he did something.

funny, I seem to remember there being a lot of talk about Al Qaeda and weapon's of mass destruction. Don’t pretend “he’s a dictator!” was ever used as a justification in the run up to the war. It was a post facto rationalization, a method to justify one of the biggest cockups in the history of military intelligence.

If America truly, really cared about ridding the world of dictators, and spreading democracy to the poor and disenfranchised, there are a lot better places to start with, and a lot worse dictators to bring down.

Yes. Yes you were. No, it wasn't. There WAS no "two evils". America does not have the right to prop up dictatorships. PERIOD.

Hey this sounds unlike you. I remember when you were claiming that the US never should oppose dictatorships. You said you were pissed because people called you unAmerican for opposing the war against Iraq. So which is it?

We agree on that. Maybe you are a neocon as well?

Like Hell I'm not.

Hey this sounds unlike you. I remember when you were claiming that the US never should oppose dictatorships. You said you were pissed because people called you unAmerican for opposing the war against Iraq. So which is it?

Let me spell it out:

YOU DO NOT GET TO SET UP OR TOPPLE REGIMES TO YOUR LIKING! NEITHER SET UP, NOR TOPPLE!

Get it?

Thanks.

You un-American dissenter.

funny, I seem to remember there being a lot of talk about Al Qaeda and weapon's of mass destruction. Don’t pretend “he’s a dictator!” was ever used as a justification in the run up to the war. It was a post facto rationalization, a method to justify one of the biggest cockups in the history of military intelligence.

If America truly, really cared about ridding the world of dictators, and spreading democracy to the poor and disenfranchised, there are a lot better places to start with, and a lot worse dictators to bring down.

You are half right and half wrong. Before the war, the UK published an excellent white paper on human rights in Iraq. I believe that Saddam being an A hole (although it was said much more eloquently than that) was a significant part of the umpteen reasons why Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq. However, Saddam's refusal to cooperate with UN inspections played a major role in the decision to go to war.

The WMD aspect of this was not "He has WMDs, go get him." It was, "We believe he has WMDs and he is acting like he has them by not cooperating with our efforts to monitor and inspect for WMDS, go get him." There is a big difference between those two views of the role of the WMDs. The first view is the world according to CNN and the Bush bashers. The second view is the truth without the spindoctors.

The WMD aspect of this was not "He has WMDs, go get him." It was, "We believe he has WMDs and he is acting like he has them by not cooperating with our efforts to monitor and inspect for WMDS, go get him." There is a big difference between those two views of the role of the WMDs. The first view is the world according to CNN and the Bush bashers. The second view is the truth without the spindoctors.

really? The word "yellowcake" comes to mind, or did the spindoctors dream that little speech up?

really? The word "yellowcake" comes to mind, or did the spindoctors dream that little speech up?

Of course. It's a CNN and MSNBC fabrication.

really? The word "yellowcake" comes to mind, or did the spindoctors dream that little speech up?

What are you talking about? Yellowcake sounds kinda tasty but it is probably a reference to something radioactive, inedible, and carinogenic.

Let me spell it out:

YOU DO NOT GET TO SET UP OR TOPPLE REGIMES TO YOUR LIKING! NEITHER SET UP, NOR TOPPLE!

Get it?

Thanks.

You un-American dissenter.

Why not? Why should we sit idly by as some dictator sets up concentration camps for political prisoners and prisoners of conscience? Why should we do nothing in the face of torture, murder, rape, and genocide? We have a duty to topple those regimes and bring those responsible to justice. We did it to Nazi Germany and Baathist Iraq. That maybe a problem to you but it does not trouble me at all.

Why not? Why should we sit idly by as some dictator sets up concentration camps for political prisoners and prisoners of conscience? Why should we do nothing in the face of torture, murder, rape, and genocide? We have a duty to topple those regimes and bring those responsible to justice. We did it to Nazi Germany and Baathist Iraq. That maybe a problem to you but it does not trouble me at all.

Because it results in the craphole Iraq turned into, and I have yet to see one of the people killed by American soldiers resurrect.

Why not? Why should we sit idly by as some dictator sets up concentration camps for political prisoners and prisoners of conscience? Why should we do nothing in the face of torture, murder, rape, and genocide? We have a duty to topple those regimes and bring those responsible to justice. We did it to Nazi Germany and Baathist Iraq. That maybe a problem to you but it does not trouble me at all.

I think that is a epic case of totally missing the point.... How Baathist Iraq and Nazi Germany compare is beyond me as Iraq had done nothing to provoke a attack by us, nothing beyond what we had let them do for a decade. And I think his point was more general, for instance, Reagan's propping up of brutal right wing dictatorships as long as they were anti-communist. I've never heard anyone apply the same standard to that that they do to Iraq.

Because it results in the craphole Iraq turned into, and I have yet to see one of the people killed by American soldiers resurrect.

You never give up do you. It sometimes makes me think you are not trolling but actually believe what you write. Did anyone that Saddam Hussein murder resurrect?

I think that is a epic case of totally missing the point.... How Baathist Iraq and Nazi Germany compare is beyond me as Iraq had done nothing to provoke a attack by us, nothing beyond what we had let them do for a decade. And I think his point was more general, for instance, Reagan's propping up of brutal right wing dictatorships as long as they were anti-communist. I've never heard anyone apply the same standard to that that they do to Iraq.

I am not sure what your point was. Nazis were not tried for invading other countries. They were tried for war attrocities and genocide. Saddam Hussein and his lot did a whole bunch of attrocities.

Which is why those nasty cold war allegiances were not an expression of neoconservatism.

It may not be what you think of as neoconservatism, but alliances with less-than-democratic anticommunist leaders were pursued and supported by leading neoconservative thinkers during the Cold War. Anticommunist interventionism is the central pillar of neoconservatism. Neoconservatives were under no illusions about what charming peaches some of these dictators were, but they honestly thought that fighting Soviet-style Communism was more important.

Please note that I'm neither defending nor attacking this point of view, but stating basic history. You're essentially saying that Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and D.P. Moynihan weren't neoconservatives despite the fact that they founded the neoconservative movement. On that note, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

What are you talking about? Yellowcake sounds kinda tasty but it is probably a reference to something radioactive, inedible, and carinogenic.
At this point, you prove that you are not serious. Obvious jokes are not funny.

I am not sure what your point was. Nazis were not tried for invading other countries. They were tried for war attrocities and genocide. Saddam Hussein and his lot did a whole bunch of attrocities.

Same here, not sure what your point is other than Saddam was evil.

I think it was David Brooks who had a funny line the other day about how all of this recent Republican navel-gazing has produced a lot of essays about how the Republican Party will never succeed until everybody thinks more like the person writing the essay. This is silly. It was silly when the Democrats did it in 1988. It was even sillier when US Communists did it in the early 20th century, because they allowed internal disagreements to break their party apart from the inside.

The Republican leadership has more sense than the Communists. (Probably.) Neoconservatives will probably have less influence on the direction of the party than they did in 2000, not so much because of this election but because their leading thinkers (Podhoretz, Kristol, & sons) look less infallible, if not downright pantless, for what they predicted about Afghanistan & Iraq. Neocons won't be kicked out, because US parties don't kick factions out. Occasionally they ignore and annoy them so much that they leave of their own accord, but that's a different and much slower process. Zell Miller, for example, was ignored by the Democrats for ages before he went away.

The thing about America is that we keep looking into the future. We keep trying new things. The Republican party will eventually (and possibly quite soon) figure out how to combine its existing ingredients into a new and delicious Cake of Relevancy that 52% of the American public will want to sample. It won't be the Christian strudel that the social-conservative "base" wants, and it won't be the lemon chiffon with Interventionist sauce that the Neocons want, but there will be a cake, unless the Republicans really want to enjoy the kind of national leadership currently enjoyed by CPUSA.

Same here, not sure what your point is other than Saddam was evil.

I think that what Heikoku has been trying to say is that there's been losers on both sides. There's no way one can justify the deaths of those killed by Hussein and the deaths of American soldiers who've laid down their lives in Iraqi soil as good or necessary.

I think that what Heikoku has been trying to say is that there's been losers on both sides. There's no way one can justify the deaths of those killed by Hussein and the deaths of American soldiers who've laid down their lives in Iraqi soil as good or necessary.

That's true, but I was quoting Freedonia, not Heikoku, unless your just making a general point?

That's true, but I was quoting Freedonia, not Heikoku, unless your just making a general point?

Making a general point taking your post as a starting point.

Making a general point taking your post as a starting point.

Ok, now that we've got that cleared up, where were we?:):p

I think that what Heikoku has been trying to say is that there's been losers on both sides. There's no way one can justify the deaths of those killed by Hussein and the deaths of American soldiers who've laid down their lives in Iraqi soil as good or necessary.

In order to topple tyrants like Saddam Hussein, there must be battle. Unfortunately, our soldiers die in battle. That does not mean that their sacrifice was not worth it.

Our town has lost a couple of men in Iraq. We had bad luck. We definitely lost more than our share of men to this war, but they were lost for a great cause.

Although I made a bad joke about yellow cake, I am not familiar with the yellowcake speech that was mentioned earlier. I have heard of yellowcake as a uranium enrichment product.

In order to topple tyrants like Saddam Hussein, there must be battle. Unfortunately, our soldiers die in battle. That does not mean that their sacrifice was not worth it.

Our town has lost a couple of men in Iraq. We had bad luck. We definitely lost more than our share of men to this war, but they were lost for a great cause.

War IS NOT a great cause, don't give me that BS. There was no need, absolutely no need, for those men in your town, or in your country's army, to die. Not for a personal vendetta, not for the whims of one man blind with power. Not on account of GWB.

War IS NOT a great cause, don't give me that BS. There was no need, absolutely no need, for those men in your town, or in your country's army, to die.

I think this quote would be appropriate.

"Our brave young men are dying in the swamps of Southeast Asia. Which of them might have written a poem? Which of them might have cured cancer? Which of them might have played in a World Series or given us the gift of laughter from the stage or helped build a bridge or a university? Which of them would have taught a child to read? It is our responsibility to let these men live....It is indecent if they die because of the empty vanity of their country."-Robert F. Kennedy.

War IS NOT a great cause, don't give me that BS. There was no need, absolutely no need, for those men in your town, or in your country's army, to die.

hmm, war can be a great cause, if said war has admirable aims. Likely the people here cannot be convinced one way or the other which wars are which, but I should hope that people realize the use of force is sometimes more ethical than standing on the sidelines.

I think the above is why neocons are not going to be "thrown out" of the party. And as has been pointed out earlier, the republicans need them to win. Losing any part of the coalition means a loss. And if the republicans thought the neocon ideology was more toxic than the democratic one, they'd switch parties.

I think this quote would be appropriate.

"Our brave young men are dying in the swamps of Southeast Asia. Which of them might have written a poem? Which of them might have cured cancer? Which of them might have played in a World Series or given us the gift of laughter from the stage or helped build a bridge or a university? Which of them would have taught a child to read? It is our responsibility to let these men live....It is indecent if they die because of the empty vanity of their country."-Robert F. Kennedy.

Which, IMO, is what they're doing. Dying for the empty vanity, not of their country, but of one man, their president.

hmm, war can be a great cause, if said war has admirable aims. Likely the people here cannot be convinced one way or the other which wars are which, but I should hope that people realize the use of force is sometimes more ethical than standing on the sidelines.

I agree with some of this actually, you can argue that WWII was a great cause, I don't see that same argument for Iraq.

Nanatsu: Don't leave out Congress and Donald Rumsfield, it was after all Rumsfield, who was talking about invading Iraq 5 hours after 9/11.

It is a shame that more political prisoners will be tortured and killed because CNN and the Bush Bashers posioned the minds of the people against wars to liberate the oppressed.

We need more intervention abroad to free the oppressed. The corrupt UN does nothing. I hope that unilateralism continues but I doubt that it will until Obama is tossed out of office in 2012.

Unfortunately, conservatives are usually too doveish (ie. cowardly) to do anything with our military abroad. For every one man like George Bush there are ten members of the pacifistic John Birch society. Does anybody else see any hope out there for American liberation efforts of oppressed people in the future?

Maybe Republicans will join Democrats in the pursuit of isolationism. They probably will ftw.

"Bush Bashers" interesting way to describe the 73% of the country that disapproves of the Bush Administration. As for liberating the oppressed, where should we start? Invade Iran or China?

It is a shame that more political prisoners will be tortured and killed because CNN and the Bush Bashers posioned the minds of the people against wars to liberate the oppressed.

yeah, we'll liberate the fuck out of 'em. liberate them straight to secretly reopened (under new management!) gulag facilities. fuck yeah, freedom!

It is a shame that more political prisoners will be tortured and killed because CNN and the Bush Bashers posioned the minds of the people against wars to liberate the oppressed.

We need more intervention abroad to free the oppressed. The corrupt UN does nothing. I hope that unilateralism continues but I doubt that it will until Obama is tossed out of office in 2012.

Unfortunately, conservatives are usually too doveish (ie. cowardly) to do anything with our military abroad. For every one man like George Bush there are ten members of the pacifistic John Birch society. Does anybody else see any hope out there for American liberation efforts of oppressed people in the future?

Maybe Republicans will join Democrats in the pursuit of isolationism. They probably will ftw.

Why do we need more intervention abroad?

I'm actually divided on this issue... Saddam was doing bad things to people... but did that give us the right to invade a sovereign power, and decide it's internal destiny? Ignore, for a second, how much we fucked up such a simple task... SHOULD we have even tried?

My problem with this empire building kick... is that this is not new. You look through your history book, and you see that what the US has been doing for the last decade... is what a number of the big European powers did for the last few centuries... only they did it better. And it STILL went to shit, nine times out of ten.

My other problem is this 'God's Chosen People' mentality. Just because we've got western-democratic-capitalism, EVERYONE needs western-democratic-capitalism? It's bullshit. What works for me, might not work for you.

Why do we need more intervention abroad?

I'm actually divided on this issue... Saddam was doing bad things to people... but did that give us the right to invade a sovereign power, and decide it's internal destiny? Ignore, for a second, how much we fucked up such a simple task... SHOULD we have even tried?

My problem with this empire building kick... is that this is not new. You look through your history book, and you see that what the US has been doing for the last decade... is what a number of the big European powers did for the last few centuries... only they did it better. And it STILL went to shit, nine times out of ten.

My other problem is this 'God's Chosen People' mentality. Just because we've got western-democratic-capitalism, EVERYONE needs western-democratic-capitalism? It's bullshit. What works for me, might not work for you.

And saying we're going to be isolationist under a Democrat is ridiculous.... Less interventionist probably, but isolationist? Please.

And saying we're going to be isolationist under a Democrat is ridiculous.... Less interventionist probably, but isolationist? Please.

I kind of get the feeling we're supposed to see those as the two sides of the coin... either you're rolling tanks into people's capitals... or you're isolationist. Some people don't seem to believe in middle ground.

I kind of get the feeling we're supposed to see those as the two sides of the coin... either you're rolling tanks into people's capitals... or you're isolationist. Some people don't seem to believe in middle ground.

Extremism ftl. It's the same "They oppose the war, they are wimpy pussies who will kowtow to terrorists!" mentality.

And saying we're going to be isolationist under a Democrat is ridiculous.... Less interventionist probably, but isolationist? Please.

shit, probably just as interventionist, but without the whole "glorious military adventure for the glory of the fatherland" kick

Extremism ftl. It's the same "They oppose the war, they are wimpy pussies who will kowtow to terrorists!" mentality.

Which is ridiculous. After 9/11... what was our number one objective? Catch/kill Osama.

And now, almost 2009... what progress have we made on that? Have we caught him? Or are we bound up in wars on two fronts?

'War' as exactly the wrong prescription for the disease of 9/11... even though it made a lot of people feel a bit better for a while, it was just the buzz of the drug, it didn't make us well or treat the cause.

If we were serious about bin Ladin, what we should have done is waited for him to surface again, and precision hit him in an absolutely limited strike.

"Bush Bashers" interesting way to describe the 73% of the country that disapproves of the Bush Administration. As for liberating the oppressed, where should we start? Invade Iran or China?

There are plenty of reasons to be against the Bush Administration! However, one of the biggest reasons why most people do seems to be the wars. Would you prefer Iran, China, or someother oppressive regime? I am leaning towards either Syria, Iran, or North Korea.

It is a shame that more political prisoners will be tortured and killed because CNN and the Bush Bashers posioned the minds of the people against wars to liberate the oppressed.

It's a shame that hundreds of thousands of people WERE tortured and killed on wars of choice Bush's sycophants helped cause.

Two can play this game. Argue decently, or don't argue at all.

There are plenty of reasons to be against the Bush Administration! However, one of the biggest reasons why most people do seems to be the wars. Would you prefer Iran, China, or someother oppressive regime? I am leaning towards either Syria, Iran, or North Korea.

You seem to be suggesting that people who oppose Bush because of his little wars, probably wouldn't if he could have kept the metaphorical snake in the cage. But the wars are just a symptom, of a corrupt regime with somewhere between little and no regard for human life. Admittedly, a very noticable symptom, with tens of thousands of little bloody points of evidence.

So.... We should storm into Syria, Iran, or North Korea because we don't like their governments? (I'm also curious where the troops for all of this "Glorious Liberation" will come from while we're tied down in Afghanistan) Starting wars to topple sovereign states we don't like, fuck yeah!

Although I made a bad joke about yellow cake, I am not familiar with the yellowcake speech that was mentioned earlier. I have heard of yellowcake as a uranium enrichment product.
I am not even going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Sorry. I'm calling bullshit -- deliberate bullshit. The entire world is aware of the Nigerian yellowcake mess, and if you claim to be a neocon and you also claim that you don't know anything about it, then you are lying about something.

And this is typical neocon behavior. Revising history, claiming that well documented, publicly known facts never existed, pretending innocent ignorance when cornered, deny-deny-deny -- all are standard operating procedure for neocons, the most dedicated deliberate liars in all of modern politics.

The extreme -- sometimes comical -- dishonesty of neocons can be directly linked to their awareness of the obvious unpopularity of their views. Knowing that they are a tiny minority, and in no way even trying to win people over, they seek merely to manipulate people into letting them into positions of policy influence and to insulate themselves against any accountability for the outcomes of their policies. They really are quite insufferable.

So.... We should storm into Syria, Iran, or North Korea because we don't like their governments? (I'm also curious where the troops for all of this "Glorious Liberation" will come from while we're tied down in Afghanistan) Starting wars to topple sovereign states we don't like, fuck yeah!

Syria might be possible. Iran is unlikely, since we're no longer entirely sure about whether they would (or could) fight back. North Korea are off the table. China is off the table.

The US only likes to pick wars with tiny little sandy wastelands, with no means of fighting back better than rifles.

I kind of get the feeling we're supposed to see those as the two sides of the coin... either you're rolling tanks into people's capitals... or you're isolationist. Some people don't seem to believe in middle ground.
The middle ground doesn't sell as many tanks and planes as the interventionist side. Just saying.

Syria might be possible. Iran is unlikely, since we're no longer entirely sure about whether they would (or could) fight back. North Korea are off the table. China is off the table.

The US only likes to pick wars with tiny little sandy wastelands, with no means of fighting back better than rifles.
Heh, and yet look how well those sandy wastes with their puny rifles manage to do against us. Yeah, neocon leadership is really effective, isn't it?

Heh, and yet look how well those sandy wastes with their puny rifles manage to do against us. Yeah, neocon leadership is really effective, isn't it?

Fuck yeah!

Oh, and here's another quote on war, by another known pacifistic isolationist:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. "-Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Fuck yeah!

Oh, and here's another quote on war, by another known pacifistic isolationist:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. "-Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Eisenhower, that commie!

Seriously, how anyone with any self-respect can support neocon views after these 8 years of spectacular, devastating, cluster-fuck failures (not including all the neocon cluster-fucks of the Reagan and Bush I admins) is beyond me.

*notices phrase "self-respect" in the above* Oh, no wait, I actually do understand how they can do it.

I mean, for fuck's sake, even Francis Fukuyama, one of the leading neocon names, somehow managed to wake up one day, look at the past 8 years, and declare publicly that neoconservatism has been proven an unworkable concept that should be abandoned. What the hell is wrong with these desperate hangers-on?

Neoconservatism summed up: http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll31/DemonLordRazgriz/neocon.png

Neoconservatism summed up: http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll31/DemonLordRazgriz/neocon.png
Not even funny. It is my firm opinion that neoconservatism is the political philosophy of war criminals, corporatist totalitarians, and wannabe aristocrats who lack the actual breeding required to be real princes. In case it's not obvious, I have no respect for them.

I mean, for fuck's sake, even Francis Fukuyama, one of the leading neocon names, somehow managed to wake up one day, look at the past 8 years, and declare publicly that neoconservatism has been proven an unworkable concept that should be abandoned. What the hell is wrong with these desperate hangers-on?

Because they're members of the Cult of Dogma that is Bushevism. Much like Dear Leader, they believe that stubbornness and inflexibility are part of the human arete while open-mindedness is a contemptible weakness. In addition, they share Shrub's refusal to admit to any serious mistakes and also tend to share a penchance for hyperbole in regards to global politics. Any opposing viewpoints regardless of rationality and civility will automatically be treated as The Enemy.

Look at them. They openly admire and praise a man who has incompetently run at least three businesses into the ground and almost succeeded in doing the same with the United States.

Any serious push for Caribou Barbie Palin as Presidential candidate in 2012 will just be big freaking Bat Signal that Bushevism as a Republican philosophy lives on past Dear Leader's administration.

without centrists they are doomed.
..and as well, they should be. They've earned their extinction.

It is my firm opinion that neoconservatism is the political philosophy of war criminals, corporatist totalitarians, and wannabe aristocrats who lack the actual breeding required to be real princes.
:fluffle:
Winner, here.

Neocons are not former democrats. We are a group of conservatives that oppose totalitarianism abroad and at home. We are hawkish on the subject of totalitarianism and human rights. Our movement arose in reaction to Stalin.


Um... No.

Neo-Cons are... a complex political movement that started as a Conservative reinterpretation of International Relations theories known as "liberal". They believe in interventionalism, the defiance of international regimes on peace, the environment, and human rights, and the use of religion as a "platonic lie" as advocated by Leo Strauss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Drift_away_from_New_Left_and_Great_Society

They emerged in the late '70's as a response to the perception that the Democratic party had grown "soft" on US interests.

..and as well, they should be. They've earned their extinction.
yes they have.

but we need a vigorous 2nd party. id be happier if they werent a party of dicks.

In order to topple tyrants like Saddam Hussein, there must be battle. Unfortunately, our soldiers die in battle. That does not mean that their sacrifice was not worth it.

Our town has lost a couple of men in Iraq. We had bad luck. We definitely lost more than our share of men to this war, but they were lost for a great cause.
what about the iraqi dead? those civilians and soldiers who were living their own lives as best they could before the US decided to invade?

are their deaths warranted? and if so, why do WE get to decide that its OK to kill the innocent of a country that is not doing anything to us?

yes they have.

but we need a vigorous 2nd party. id be happier if they werent a party of dicks.I agree. To often the "vigour" is translated via media op as "zealotry".
Often with good reason. I'd be refreshing to see the real change.
And how.

Seriously, how anyone with any self-respect can support neocon views after these 8 years of spectacular, devastating, cluster-fuck failures (not including all the neocon cluster-fucks of the Reagan and Bush I admins) is beyond me.

because they buy into the typical neocon bullshit of if we just give them one more chance it'll all work out, and they'll be proven correct. You can see it all in the playbook. We'll be greeted as liberators! Mission Accomplished! The Green Zone is safe! The surge is working!

The neocon world view is simple. Victory is always and perpetually just around the next corner.

Will the Democratic Party ever throw out the Communists?

Will the Democratic Party ever throw out the Communists?

What Communists? There are no Communists in the Democratic Party.

What Communists? There are no Communists in the Democratic Party.

Um, yeah...:rolleyes:

They have the same, "one more victory..." thing the neocons have. And an inability to acknowledge how stupid they are.

Will the Democratic Party ever throw out the Communists?

That depends. Will the Republican Party ever throw out the Nazis?

Argue decently or don't argue!

The middle ground doesn't sell as many tanks and planes as the interventionist side. Just saying.

On the profiteers, I can understand it. I think it hateful, but I 'get' the rationale.

But... the apologists? Why does someone toe the APOLOGIST line, when the profiteers are only in it because it's rich?

Will the Democratic Party ever throw out the Communists?

Pure hyperbole? Or do you honestly believe there are communists in the Democratic party?

I'm suspecting this is just more 'anything that helps poor people is communism' bullshit.

..and as well, they should be. They've earned their extinction.
Well, they like to call themselves "realists" (irony!) and cop a darwinist attitude, so I guess... Adapt or Die, eh?

what about the iraqi dead? those civilians and soldiers who were living their own lives as best they could before the US decided to invade?

are their deaths warranted? and if so, why do WE get to decide that its OK to kill the innocent of a country that is not doing anything to us?
The thing you have to remember about neocons is that they think it's perfectly okay to kill thousands, even millions of people in order to achieve their policy goals, which only coincidentally involve huge monetary profits for corporations they and their friends are connected to.

They justify this with romantic sounding bullshit about noble sacrifices for ideals, but the fact is they only sacrifice other people's children, preferably poor people whom they look upon as surplus population that exist only to be used -- and if you can use them in a way that obviates the need to keep feeding them, all the better because that frees up more resources for their personal use.

Appeals to body counts and human suffering have no effect on neocons because those deaths were part of their plan. They are an up-side to the whole filthy project.

because they buy into the typical neocon bullshit of if we just give them one more chance it'll all work out, and they'll be proven correct. You can see it all in the playbook. We'll be greeted as liberators! Mission Accomplished! The Green Zone is safe! The surge is working!

The neocon world view is simple. Victory is always and perpetually just around the next corner.
And the sun the will come out tomorrow. Believe me, I know.

Will the Democratic Party ever throw out the Communists?
And they can always be relied upon to counter with BS.

Um, yeah...:rolleyes:

They have the same, "one more victory..." thing the neocons have. And an inability to acknowledge how stupid they are.

Look. A Communist is someone who believes in the complete nationalization of industry, the redistribution of wealth to levels of total equity, and converting to a Command and Control economy. In most incarnations it is a revolutionary ideology. Often, it is dictatorial. There are Communist groups in the United States. There are even revolutionary Stalinist groups in the U.S. None of them belongs to the Democratic Party.

On the other hand, the Neoconservatives are a real branch of the Republican party.

So... Your question is the equivalent of asking, "When will the Libertarians kick the One-Eyed, One-Horned, Flying, Purple People-Eaters out of their party?"*


* Not counting Bob Barr.

Will the Democratic Party ever throw out the Communists?

didn't this already happen in the late 40s?

Well, they like to call themselves "realists" (irony!) and cop a darwinist attitude, so I guess... Adapt or Die, eh?

Except that a good many of them also tend to be Palin-grade religious nutcakes who believe in Creationism. Hence adapting and evolving are the Devil's Tools to them.

:D

The thing you have to remember about neocons is that they think it's perfectly okay to kill thousands, even millions of people in order to achieve their policy goals, which only coincidentally involve huge monetary profits for corporations they and their friends are connected to.

They justify this with romantic sounding bullshit about noble sacrifices for ideals, but the fact is they only sacrifice other people's children, preferably poor people whom they look upon as surplus population that exist only to be used -- and if you can use them in a way that obviates the need to keep feeding them, all the better because that frees up more resources for their personal use.

Appeals to body counts and human suffering have no effect on neocons because those deaths were part of their plan. They are an up-side to the whole filthy project.

Which is part of why any serious implementation of Trickle Down Economics is always doomed to failure. Those at the top almost never have any empathy with those at the bottom.

And the sun the will come out tomorrow. Believe me, I know.

And the Republicans will be spending the next 4 years looking for the slightest pretense to declare Obama's presidency an abject failure and hypocrisy. Just like NSG's resident Potato Boy has tried recently.

And they can always be relied upon to counter with BS.

It's Kimchi spewing the usual Bushevik tripe, this surprises anyone?

didn't this already happen in the late 40s?

Except for some of the Union communists. They didn't really get kicked out until the 70's.

It's Kimchi spewing the usual Bushevik tripe, this surprises anyone?

Oh... DK. Shouldn't have bitten. Oops.

Oh... DK. Shouldn't have bitten. Oops.

A thorough use of mouthwash'll take care of the problem.

:D

That depends. Will the Republican Party ever throw out the Nazis?

Argue decently or don't argue!
Dude, it's Kimchi. He can't do the former and can't bring himself to do the latter.

On the profiteers, I can understand it. I think it hateful, but I 'get' the rationale.

But... the apologists? Why does someone toe the APOLOGIST line, when the profiteers are only in it because it's rich?
Read John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience. He goes deep into analyzing the various mindsets involved in this scene. It's very interesting. I'd say there are two kinds of apologists:

1) Profiteers who haven't been outed yet as making money directly off the neocon policies. Their disingenuous defenses of the Bush doctrine and other such crap are kind of like those PSAs about how good coal is for the environment that are put out by organizations of coal corporations pretending to be citizens groups. Bush's fuck ups did not harm their quarterly earnings at all, and they have strong motivation to want more of the same.

2) Authoritarian "true believers." These are the people who believe Bush was ordained by God to save civlization. They and the people who exploit them (see (1) above) are the focus of Dean's book. These people are driven not by self interest but by a compulsive fear of a world without totalitarian control. Their thinking on issues is almost magical -- it doesn't matter if Bush fucked up every single thing he ever touched, as long as they believe he is the strong control figure they believe their future depends on. Any thing he fails at is considered de facto not important. Nothing will ever change their minds short of Bush himself abandoning his own neocon policies. If he does that, then they will turn on him.

Dude, it's Kimchi. He can't do the former and can't bring himself to do the latter.

I know.

A thorough use of mouthwash'll take care of the problem.

:D

Oh, trust me, I already have it out. And the Ibuprofin, because he will hurt my head with his twisted logic. This is what I get for going away...

Will the Democratic Party ever throw out the Communists?

why don't you point them out for us first?

Except that a good many of them also tend to be Palin-grade religious nutcakes who believe in Creationism. Hence adapting and evolving are the Devil's Tools to them.

:D
Neocons and the religious right are two different groups. The neocons seek to exploit and manipulate the religious right. As usual, they are playing with dynamite and matches together.

But it's true, the religious right, having rejected the theory, are not able to evolve. They seem determined to stay what they are now -- shudder -- forever.

Which is part of why any serious implementation of Trickle Down Economics is always doomed to failure. Those at the top almost never have any empathy with those at the bottom.
Trickle Down is only doomed to failure if you assume it was ever meant to deliver income to the middle, working and lower classes. If, like me, you believe it was never meant to be anything but a lie and never meant to do anything but mollify the public into thinking they were not being hung out to dry by a bunch of grifters who were setting things up to facilitate them skimming the entire economy off the top (as we see today they actually did), then fuck, Trickle Down worked perfectly.

why don't you point them out for us first?

I'm sure Kimchi can come up with certifiable documentation of Communists in the Democratic Party:

http://www.espionageinfo.com/images/eeis_02_img0831.jpg

"Bush Bashers" interesting way to describe the 73% of the country that disapproves of the Bush Administration. As for liberating the oppressed, where should we start? Invade Iran or China?

We could start small by invading America and freeing those illegally held and tortured at Gitmo.

Neocons and the religious right are two different groups. The neocons seek to exploit and manipulate the religious right. As usual, they are playing with dynamite and matches together.

But it's true, the religious right, having rejected the theory, are not able to evolve. They seem determined to stay what they are now -- shudder -- forever.

Except as McCain found out later in his campaign and during his concession speech, it wasn't even dynamite. It was nitro.


Trickle Down is only doomed to failure if you assume it was ever meant to deliver income to the middle, working and lower classes. If, like me, you believe it was never meant to be anything but a lie and never meant to do anything but mollify the public into thinking they were not being hung out to dry by a bunch of grifters who were setting things up to facilitate them skimming the entire economy off the top (as we see today they actually did), then fuck, Trickle Down worked perfectly.

This is true.

Will the Democratic Party ever throw out the Communists?

Will Hot Eve Kimchi Wife ever prove that there are communists in the Democratic party?

Edit: And furthermore, has he stopped beating his wife yet?

Except as McCain found out later in his campaign and during his concession speech, it wasn't even dynamite. It was nitro.

Shake, shake, shake. :D

Will Hot Eve Kimchi Wife ever prove that there are communists in the Democratic party?

Edit: And furthermore, has he stopped beating his wife yet?

Nice!

Except as McCain found out later in his campaign and during his concession speech, it wasn't even dynamite. It was nitro.


But... But... He deserved more!!!

I loved the audience in that speech. It was hilarious. And then the CNN reporter afterwards, helpfully informing us that, "You may not have heard it, but there was a great deal of booing and shouting during the speech".

I'm just wondering what your opinoins are on this, hopefully they will learn the lesson eventually that the neocons have destroyed the party, (Bush, McCain etc.). Will they take the defeat of McCain's Presidential run as a hint from the citizens of the US that they need to straighten up their act and become a true conservative, and/or constituionalist party, or will they never learn?
Of course not. They are the Real Americans (tm), as opposed to everyone else in the country.

So in other words, I am not allowed my opinion on the matter because you disagree with it?

I have to be silenced because you don't like what I have to say?

Not at all. I never told you to shut up. I told you that you were wrong, and that you are not telling the truth. If you see that as telling you to shut up, fine, but Im not interested in your persecution complex.


And because I dare to speak up in this liberal haven, I am too be eviscerated as thoroughly as Joe the Plumber when he dared to call out Obama on his Tax Plan to Punish those who Work Harder?

Depends. Will you say things as outragously stupid and flat out wrong as Joe did?

I would say that it is a dangerous precedent you espouse there my friend, and one that shall make this country even more of a tinderbox than it already is.

Calling for you to not practice revisionist history and tell the truth will make this country more dangerous?


Believing that America is the Great Country in the world is Daft?

Check.

Believing that human life is sacred is daft?

In the double standard that conservatives do it is. Check.

Believing that getting Government out of the way and off of the back of the people is daft?

The right does not believe this. Check.

Believing that Higher Taxes hurt the economy and that Lower Taxes bring in more revenue from a stronger economy is daft?

Check.

Believing in God is daft?


*stays silent as not to provoke flame war*

Well then, I sir, am proudly daft!

I see.


Your wrong on that one. You win by appealing to the largest minority in the world. The Individual. You tell the individual why the government has hurt them and what you will do to get Government out of the way and off their backs, and sadly you will lose these days.

See, America is kind of giving up on the rights version of "getting the government off your back", which translates to "keep the rich from paying taxes and keep gays from having dirty sex".

Besides, what you mention above is what happened in this election. Obama said whose fault it was that we are were we are. So we voted the party that he is part of out of office.


We are marching ever forward into the chains of Dependency, and from their back into Bondage. And Jefferson had this one exactly right. "Any government powerful enough to give you everything you want, is powerful enough to take away your rights."

That is not a Jefferson quote. Besides, why does everyone always appeal to authority via Jefferson? There were other founding fathers, many of whom disageed with Jefferson.

That depends. Will the Republican Party ever throw out the Nazis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln5RD9BhcCo
Not with that kind of moxie, no.

why don't you point them out for us first?

We need some sort of committee to do this...

We need some sort of committee to do this...That committee was soundly beaten just a little while back ... so they'll be resigning themselves to their regular haunts ... FauX "News", right wing radio, church, mass forward emails ... then they'll be back again en force in 2012 with Nailin' Paylin.

Will the Democrats ever throw out the leftist Liberals like Barney Franks, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosy, Christhopher Dodd, Jose Serrano despite the fact that they are in power for now.

We need some sort of committee to do this...

Michelle Bachman will handle it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNZEcdXHvsU).

Michelle Bachman will handle it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNZEcdXHvsU).

See, I was making a McCarthy reference, but I love the direction this has taken.

Will the Democrats ever throw out the leftist Liberals like Barney Franks, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosy, Christhopher Dodd, Jose Serrano despite the fact that they are in power for now.

Leftist? Barney Frank, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Christopher Dodd are not leftists. They're spineless moderates. Serrano is a progressive who is actually fairly liberal, but no more so than his district. He's also a no-name of little importance.

John Kerry far left? LOL. http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection

I am actually trying to figure out what exactly is a neocon? Are they mindless idealogues? I am trying to figure out what exactly they are? So far I haven't been impressed by them. And the less I see of the Bushism, if that's what neoconservaism is, is the less I want. I am beginning to think that it's just a BS title for a hodge podge for anything that isn't left or Left Moderate.

I am actually trying to figure out what exactly is a neocon? Are they mindless idealogues? I am trying to figure out what exactly they are? So far I haven't been impressed by them. And the less I see of the Bushism, if that's what neoconservaism is, is the less I want. I am beginning to think that it's just a BS title for a hodge podge for anything that isn't left or Left Moderate.


Rummsfeld is the ideal Neocon.

I am actually trying to figure out what exactly is a neocon? Are they mindless idealogues? I am trying to figure out what exactly they are? So far I haven't been impressed by them. And the less I see of the Bushism, if that's what neoconservaism is, is the less I want. I am beginning to think that it's just a BS title for a hodge podge for anything that isn't left or Left Moderate.
No. "Neoconservatism" is a real political movement. Here is a pretty good historical timeline overview that includes a breakdown of its beliefs and all its important participants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and most of their main advisors are all solid neocons.

Will the Democrats ever throw out the leftist Liberals like Barney Franks, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosy, Christhopher Dodd, Jose Serrano despite the fact that they are in power for now.

of course not, for the very reason you stated. See, the neo-cons lost. They lost the presidency, they lost the senate, they lost the house, they're going to lose the judiciary, they lost solidly red states like Virginia and Indiana. As a general rule, the neo-cons lost.

On the other hand, every singe person you mentioned is still serving in their elected office. To "throw them out" would be to throw out the people who were VOTED IN in the first place.

No. "Neoconservatism" is a real political movement. Here is a pretty good historical timeline overview that includes a breakdown of its beliefs and all its important participants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and most of their main advisors are all solid neocons.

Way ahead on you on looking up information. Wikipedia was one of the first stops. And it looks like it started out with the most noble of intentions but like all good movements it went astray.

And reading....

Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant....

The influence of Leo Strauss and his disciples on neoconservatism has generated some controversy, with Lind asserting:

For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order... In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it


I am still convinced that Bush is an idiot, in regards to how he has handled things, so none of this is making that much of a diffrence to me.

As I stated they are in power for now not ever. The Republicans will be back in power eventually.

Republican =/= Neocon.

Way ahead on you on looking up information. Wikipedia was one of the first stops. And it looks like it started out with the most noble of intentions but like all good movements it went astray.


No, it was never about noble intentions and never was a good movement. It was founded on Imperialism.

Republican =/= Neocon.

Liberal Democrats = Leftists, lol.

Liberal Democrats + Leftists, lol.

lawl.


What are you on about?

Liberal Democrats = Leftists, lol.

dude, wtf are you on?

dude, wtf are you on?

That Cuban Sugar Cane so sweet Dude, lol.

No, it was never about nobel intentions and never was a good movement. It was founded on Imperialism.

Well I am reading earlier history.

"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were often liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman

None of this sounds that bad, except they have gone way too far in militarism and seem to be hand in glove with the Military Industrial complex, something which Eisenhower warned of before he left office.

Way ahead on you on looking up information. Wikipedia was one of the first stops. And it looks like it started out with the most noble of intentions but like all good movements it went astray.

And reading....




I am still convinced that Bush is an idiot, in regards to how he has handled things, so none of this is making that much of a diffrence to me.
Like KoL said, it was never about nobility. It was always about imperialism. It was also always about war profiteering. Neoconservatism is only noble in the same way that the Italian corporatists (aka the fascists) considered themselves noble. However, judged by their actions rather than their egos, they appear significantly less noble and more self-serving.

Well I am reading earlier history.



None of this sounds that bad, except they have gone way too far in militarism and seem to be hand in glove with the Military Industrial complex, something which Eisenhower warned of before he left office.

Then the Neo-Conservative movement did a total 180 on its beliefs.

of course not, for the very reason you stated. See, the neo-cons lost. They lost the presidency, they lost the senate, they lost the house, they're going to lose the judiciary, they lost solidly red states like Virginia and Indiana. As a general rule, the neo-cons lost.

On the other hand, every singe person you mentioned is still serving in their elected office. To "throw them out" would be to throw out the people who were VOTED IN in the first place.

Isn't that what Miami Shores wants? He seems to vote over a single issue anyway, and a rather petty one at that.

Well I am reading earlier history.



None of this sounds that bad, except they have gone way too far in militarism and seem to be hand in glove with the Military Industrial complex, something which Eisenhower warned of before he left office.
You are reading very selectively, it seems. You are also failing to apply what you are reading to what these same people have done in real life.

EDIT: Tyger, I originally posted that article only to show you that "neocon" is a real thing of its own, not just a label made up by leftists to slap onto non-leftists. Tell me, were you really looking to understand what a neocon is, or were you just looking for an excuse to start defending them from the criticisms that have been posted about them? Because if you actually support neocon policies, I wish you would come out and say so.

You are reading very selectively, it seems. You are also failing to apply what you are reading to what these same people have done in real life.

This.

I am not shocked.

You are reading very selectively, it seems. You are also failing to apply what you are reading to what these same people have done in real life.

I am doing a skim of the material, it's true, as it's a very long article. But it appears that they have done a 180 degree turn from what they have started out as.

I am doing a skim of the material, it's true, as it's a very long article. But it appears that they have done a 180 degree turn from what they have started out as.

Their intentions have always been the same (imperialism). Their vehical they use to achieve it has simply changed.

EDIT: Tyger, I originally posted that article only to show you that "neocon" is a real thing of its own, not just a label made up by leftists to slap onto non-leftists. Tell me, were you really looking to understand what a neocon is, or were you just looking for an excuse to start defending them from the criticisms that have been posted about them? Because if you actually support neocon policies, I wish you would come out and say so.

I am not defending them. I am just looking for more info on them as I don't really have a clue about them and what I do have or know on them is very murky shadowy basis.

I am not defending them. I am just looking for more info on them as I don't really have a clue about them and what I do have or know on them is very murky shadowy basis.

Its not a "murky shadowy basis" when it the truth.

I am doing a skim of the material, it's true, as it's a very long article. But it appears that they have done a 180 degree turn from what they have started out as.
It appears that way, yes. However, a closer reading of their philosophies starting with their nominal founder Leo Strauss, suggests that, in fact, they did not. They have always been interventionist, anti-democratic (favoring secret government action without accountability to voters), and not opposed to totalitarianism. The fact that many of their first members were once leftwingers rather than rightwingers does not seem to have made a difference, either.

It appears that way, yes. However, a closer reading of their philosophies starting with their nominal founder Leo Strauss, suggests that, in fact, they did not. They have always been interventionist, anti-democratic (favoring secret government action without accountability to voters), and not opposed to totalitarianism. The fact that many of their first members were once leftwingers rather than rightwingers does not seem to have made a difference, either.

Well for a start, I've always thought Neocons were righties, so to learn that many of them were leftwingers is a bit of a...well just a tad disconcerting.

Will the Democrats ever throw out the leftist Liberals like Barney Franks, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosy, Christhopher Dodd, Jose Serrano despite the fact that they are in power for now.

of course not, for the very reason you stated. See, the neo-cons lost. They lost the presidency, they lost the senate, they lost the house, they're going to lose the judiciary, they lost solidly red states like Virginia and Indiana. As a general rule, the neo-cons lost.

On the other hand, every singe person you mentioned is still serving in their elected office. To "throw them out" would be to throw out the people who were VOTED IN in the first place.

Amen to that. Then again, Miami Shores is a kindred spirit to Potato Boy, both of them scraping the bottom of the barrel for the slightest pretense they can dig up to declare Obama a Failed President.

And this is even before the man's sworn into office.

Isn't that what Miami Shores wants? He seems to vote over a single issue anyway, and a rather petty one at that.

Yep. Speaking of which...

Elian Gonzalez is still in Cuba with his father. Tough!

I agree they need to dump the Neocons and the "Moral Majority" crowd.

Sadly that's about all they have left, they alienated everyone else with their hypocritical policies in the past years.

Well for a start, I've always thought Neocons were righties, so to learn that many of them were leftwingers is a bit of a...well just a tad disconcerting.
Left or right, by any other name, they are the same anti-democracy, militaristic, profiteering warmongers.

Well for a start, I've always thought Neocons were righties, so to learn that many of them were leftwingers is a bit of a...well just a tad disconcerting.

Not really many of them...a few of the early ones were well versed in left wing philosophies. That doesnt mean what you have above.

Its not a "murky shadowy basis" when it the truth.

Umm clarify please.

Are you saying that Neocons are the murky shadows? Because if you are then I haven't been compleatly wrong in assuming thusly.

Umm clarify please.

Are you saying that Neocons are the murky shadows? Because if you are then I haven't been compleatly wrong in assuming thusly.

I misread your post. Ignore it.

No. "Neoconservatism" is a real political movement. Here is a pretty good historical timeline overview that includes a breakdown of its beliefs and all its important participants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and most of their main advisors are all solid neocons.
Bush isn't all that neoconservative; it wasn't until he was already president he showed signs of agreeing with some of their principles.

I misread your post. Ignore it.

Okay.

But just to say. I think they had a valid basis in their beginnings, the depression and World War II, and in wanting to protect the US, but a good deal of their mantra went way too far and extreme in the whole secret governmental order, and totaltarianism. To this I agree, that the neocons have gone overboard way too much. And in the past eight years, I always had the feeling that Bush ideology was stifling and crippling the US.

There will not be a restoration of the Republican Party until true fiscal conservatives re-emerge from its base. We have many, many good and true fiscal conservatives, but they can't seem to ever win the nomination. Men such as Huckabee, Romney, and Gingrich have all emerged in attempt to bring back the old glory days for the Republicans.

Frankly, I think the Republicans will win the 2012 election. Most economic predictions have Obama's plans failing almost immediately; socialism is not seen kindly here. (Please don't try to tell me he's not a socialist, I have the logic and numbers to prove otherwise.)

America is going to want more change again in '12, and true economic conservatives like Huckabee will once again run for office, hopefully more successfully this time around. He's already got his own T.V. program and is obviously attempting to gain recognition for a '12 run, as is Romney.

I really don't think a Huckabee/Romney ticket wouldn't win. Huckabee's true conservative nature would win the Republican base and Romney's sound economic policies would easily win the average American and the moderates. Unless these economic predictions for Obama are wrong and he does improve the economy, I can't see a Republican loss in '12.

Frankly, I think the Republicans will win the 2012 election. Most economic predictions have Obama's plans failing almost immediately; socialism is not seen kindly here. (Please don't try to tell me he's not a socialist, I have the logic and numbers to prove otherwise.)

Hes not, and I doubt you have logic to prove it. Besides, many economists endorsed him. So....

Bush isn't all that neoconservative; it wasn't until he was already president he showed signs of agreeing with some of their principles.
Being a johnny-come-lately doesn't make him less a member of the club.

I'm just wondering what your opinoins are on this, hopefully they will learn the lesson eventually that the neocons have destroyed the party, (Bush, McCain etc.). Will they take the defeat of McCain's Presidential run as a hint from the citizens of the US that they need to straighten up their act and become a true conservative, and/or constituionalist party, or will they never learn?

The neocons are a spent force. It's the socons that are *really* destroying the Republicans.

Frankly, I think the Republicans will win the 2012 election. Most economic predictions have Obama's plans failing almost immediately; socialism is not seen kindly here. (Please don't try to tell me he's not a socialist, I have the logic and numbers to prove otherwise.)

Even if they put up Caribou Barbie for a Presidential run?

And honestly, this is just a small example of the pathological fear and hatred of anything that even remotely feels like socialism that has infected America since the days of the Red Scare. Just like the general fear and loathing of Muslims, the general fear and loathing of cartoon caricature socialism has been seriously used as a weapon against Obama and early on in the campaign it seemed to be working.

Frankly, I think the Republicans will win the 2012 election. Most economic predictions have Obama's plans failing almost immediately; socialism is not seen kindly here. (Please don't try to tell me he's not a socialist, I have the logic and numbers to prove otherwise.)

Please, lay them on us.

There will not be a restoration of the Republican Party until true fiscal conservatives re-emerge from its base. We have many, many good and true fiscal conservatives, but they can't seem to ever win the nomination. Men such as Huckabee, Romney, and Gingrich have all emerged in attempt to bring back the old glory days for the Republicans.

Frankly, I think the Republicans will win the 2012 election. Most economic predictions have Obama's plans failing almost immediately; socialism is not seen kindly here. (Please don't try to tell me he's not a socialist, I have the logic and numbers to prove otherwise.)

America is going to want more change again in '12, and true economic conservatives like Huckabee will once again run for office, hopefully more successfully this time around. He's already got his own T.V. program and is obviously attempting to gain recognition for a '12 run, as is Romney.

I really don't think a Huckabee/Romney ticket wouldn't win. Huckabee's true conservative nature would win the Republican base and Romney's sound economic policies would easily win the average American and the moderates. Unless these economic predictions for Obama are wrong and he does improve the economy, I can't see a Republican loss in '12.


Please, Romney a fiscial conservative. When he was ranting and raving with the neoconservatives about war and militarism policies during the Repub convention. Although he may have some Fiscial conserative leanings, his behavior has proven that he has joined up with the neocon lot.

Frankly, I think the Republicans will win the 2012 election. Most economic predictions have Obama's plans failing almost immediately; socialism is not seen kindly here. (Please don't try to tell me he's not a socialist, I have the logic and numbers to prove otherwise.)
I'm curious what these logic and numbers are.

America is going to want more change again in '12, and true economic conservatives like Huckabee will once again run for office, hopefully more successfully this time around. He's already got his own T.V. program and is obviously attempting to gain recognition for a '12 run, as is Romney.

I really don't think a Huckabee/Romney ticket wouldn't win. Huckabee's true conservative nature would win the Republican base and Romney's sound economic policies would easily win the average American and the moderates. Unless these economic predictions for Obama are wrong and he does improve the economy, I can't see a Republican loss in '12.
I've been hearing similar things a lot recently, that the US is still a center-right nation, that if an actual conservative ran he'd win, etc. I think there's some truth in that; Obama's win was more the result of opposition to a single administration and less opposition to a political philosophy. But the reason there's little opposition to an entire philosophy is because few voters care about philosophy. People vote for policies they like, and if those policies are ideologically inconsistent, so be it. Huckabee can be as economically conservative as he likes, but if people don't like his tax plan he's in trouble.

Even if they put up Caribou Barbie for a Presidential run?Where did this nick-name originate from? I'd like to know the genius that invented it. :p

Hes not, and I doubt you have logic to prove it. Besides, many economists endorsed him. So....

Many economists also endorsed McCain. Many wacko's endorsed Obama; the same is true with McCain. Endorsements mean nothing, predictions mean everything. And those aren't looking so bright for our President-Elect.

President Obama plans to raise taxes on the "rich," those making over $227,000 (or possibly $172,000, he's been very shaky on where this line actually starts). Either way, most predictions have the average small business making over both these marks. These sources include Alex Moskalyuk, Eric Toder of the Urban Institute and Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, and WikiAnswers. In fact, this number is steadily increasing.

This, many economists point out, is the base of true capitalism and economic success. With even more taxes that Obama plans to increase on these people, their chance of achieving the American dream diminish immensly.

But, to some, that's fine. And that's not socialism. Agreed. However, what he plans to do with these payroll tax increases is what is socialist. Those taxes are going directly, via a check in the mail, to those that are currently unemployed.

"But Bush, Reagan, etc. have done the same thing!" Agreed again. There is a difference, however. The tax plans of these Republicans have given tax money to those unemployed for 3 months or less, in order to get themselves back on their feet. Obama plans to give my hard-earned cash to those unemployed, totally capable, but unwilling. Utterly unacceptable. And, ironically, socialist.

Being a johnny-come-lately doesn't make him less a member of the club.
Yes, but I don't think he made an intellectual decision to become a neoconservative; it just so happened some of his policies were neoconservative. There have been at least two columns I've read saying how much Bush is like a Catholic. However, they're just noticing a pattern in his governance; George Bush is in no way actually a member of the Catholic Church. Same with being a neocon; simply adopting neocon policies doesn't make you one.

I'm curious what these logic and numbers are.


I've been hearing similar things a lot recently, that the US is still a center-right nation, that if an actual conservative ran he'd win, etc. I think there's some truth in that; Obama's win was more the result of opposition to a single administration and less opposition to a political philosophy. But the reason there's little opposition to an entire philosophy is because few voters care about philosophy. People vote for policies they like, and if those policies are ideologically inconsistent, so be it. Huckabee can be as economically conservative as he likes, but if people don't like his tax plan he's in trouble.

That and Huckster had very Clintonian economic policies while he was a governer.

That and Huckster had very Clintonian economic policies while he was a governer.

That's the other thing, Mike Huckabee doesn't actually seem that fiscally conservative (although I have heard him support FairTax, for whatever that's worth). But even if he were, proclaiming the part of the spectrum you belong in isn't enough.

Many economists also endorsed McCain. Many wacko's endorsed Obama; the same is true with McCain. Endorsements mean nothing, predictions mean everything. And those aren't looking so bright for our President-Elect.

Turdblossom Rove also predicted that the Republicans would keep and even gain seats in Congress during the 2006 Election. That prediction sure meant a lot eh?

That and Huckster had very Clintonian economic policies while he was a governer.

I disagree. The only real Liberal thing he did in office was increase government spending, which went almost entirely to increasing the road system which needed drastic repair.

Yes, but I don't think he made an intellectual decision to become a neoconservative; it just so happened some of his policies were neoconservative. There have been at least two columns I've read saying how much Bush is like a Catholic. However, they're just noticing a pattern in his governance; George Bush is in no way actually a member of the Catholic Church. Same with being a neocon; simply adopting neocon policies doesn't make you one.
Well of course he didn't make an intellectual decision -- he's George W. Bush! :p

But to be serious, I disagree with your notion of Bush as an "accidental neocon", so to speak. He is surrounded by real and deliberate neocons who have held tremendous power in his adminstration, starting most obviously with Dick Cheney, then Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. They clearly influenced his policies, if not actually made them, and there is nothing accidental about their views.

Turdblossom Rove also predicted that the Republicans would keep and even gain seats in Congress during the 2006 Election. That prediction sure meant a lot eh?

Do you really want to trust a radical on either side? Last time I checked, I won't be looking to Nancy Pelosi, Rush Limbaugh, or Karl Rove for predictions. I'll look to true, sound economists.

And would you like to disclaim the rest of my post, or just argue this simple and frankly irrelevant part of my post?

I have to go for the night, but I'll be happy to argue again later.

I disagree. The only real Liberal thing he did in office was increase government spending, which went almost entirely to increasing the road system which needed drastic repair.

And increasing government spending.... which part of the Republican heartland is that appealing to? The fiscal conservatives? Or the small government proponents?

Where did this nick-name originate from? I'd like to know the genius that invented it. :p
http://www.cariboubarbie.com/

"But Bush, Reagan, etc. have done the same thing!" Agreed again. There is a difference, however. The tax plans of these Republicans have given tax money to those unemployed for 3 months or less, in order to get themselves back on their feet. Obama plans to give my hard-earned cash to those unemployed, totally capable, but unwilling. Utterly unacceptable. And, ironically, socialist.

Really? what part of that involves state ownership in the means of production? You see, you keep saying that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Many economists also endorsed McCain. Many wacko's endorsed Obama; the same is true with McCain. Endorsements mean nothing, predictions mean everything. And those aren't looking so bright for our President-Elect.

President Obama plans to raise taxes on the "rich," those making over $227,000 (or possibly $172,000, he's been very shaky on where this line actually starts). Either way, most predictions have the average small business making over both these marks. These sources include Alex Moskalyuk, Eric Toder of the Urban Institute and Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, and WikiAnswers. In fact, this number is steadily increasing.

This, many economists point out, is the base of true capitalism and economic success. With even more taxes that Obama plans to increase on these people, their chance of achieving the American dream diminish immensly.

But, to some, that's fine. And that's not socialism. Agreed. However, what he plans to do with these payroll tax increases is what is socialist. Those taxes are going directly, via a check in the mail, to those that are currently unemployed.

"But Bush, Reagan, etc. have done the same thing!" Agreed again. There is a difference, however. The tax plans of these Republicans have given tax money to those unemployed for 3 months or less, in order to get themselves back on their feet. Obama plans to give my hard-earned cash to those unemployed, totally capable, but unwilling. Utterly unacceptable. And, ironically, socialist.
Feel free to layout that logic and those numbers at any time.

Feel free to layout that logic and those numbers at any time.

the funny thing is, I've seen numerous people try to claim that they have proof, REAL UNDENIABLE PROOF that Obama is a socialist.

Yet not one, NOT FUCKING ONE OF THEM has demonstrated, shown, quoted, or even IMPLIED that any of Obama's policies will result in state or collective ownership of the means of production. That's what socialism is. By definition, it is that and nothing more.

Claims that Obama is "socialist" because he wants to "give checks to the poor" or "spread the wealth around" are bullshit, for the simple reason that this is simply not socialism. Words actually have meanings, real meanings, and nothing, not one thing, has been shown to indicate Obama supports socialism, as it is defined.

Social welfare? yes. Social interventionism? Maybe. But those are not socialism. Socialism involves the nationalization or communalization of the means of production. Absent that, nothing can be socialist, by definition.

Really? what part of that involves state ownership in the means of production? You see, you keep saying that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

And if he is going by that definition, then technically the United States is all ready a socialist nation given how it took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after bailing them out to the tune of... was it 700 billion dollars?

Apparently, socialism is only bad when it helps out the disadvantaged and the impoverished rather than bloated, corrupt corporations.

:rolleyes:

http://www.cariboubarbie.com/:hail:
You're my hero for the next...'till whenever I go to bed. :p

Well of course he didn't make an intellectual decision -- he's George W. Bush! :p

But to be serious, I disagree with your notion of Bush as an "accidental neocon", so to speak. He is surrounded by real and deliberate neocons who have held tremendous power in his adminstration, starting most obviously with Dick Cheney, then Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. They clearly influenced his policies, if not actually made them, and there is nothing accidental about their views.
That's true, the people around George Bush are defintely neocons. Paul Wolfowitz even studied under Leo Strauss, who has been called (perhaps unfairly) the philosophy's godfather.
Here's my impression of what guided George Bush's foreign policy: he was surrounded by neocons, not because of their ideology, but because they were all experienced as politicians and Republican (just ordinary con). The lack of the Soviet Union made their beliefs about foreign policy less important; they were dormant, so to speak. Then there was September 11th. Bush had to look forceful, it's a public image thing. At the same time, he was surrounded by men who had found their new Evil Empire. Both of these converged to shape what he did.

:hail:
You're my hero for the next...'till whenever I go to bed. :p
*basks in the hero worship* :D

That's true, the people around George Bush are defintely neocons. Paul Wolfowitz even studied under Leo Strauss, who has been called (perhaps unfairly) the philosophy's godfather.
Here's my impression of what guided George Bush's foreign policy: he was surrounded by neocons, not because of their ideology, but because they were all experienced as politicians and Republican (just ordinary con). The lack of the Soviet Union made their beliefs about foreign policy less important; they were dormant, so to speak. Then there was September 11th. Bush had to look forceful, it's a public image thing. At the same time, he was surrounded by men who had found their new Evil Empire. Both of these converged to shape what he did.
I disagree again. I believe GWB was picked by the neocons to get them back into the White House to continue what they started under Bush I. I do not believe the Bush admin would ever have been anything but a warmongering, economy-busting, neocon folly, just on the basis of who was in his cabinet -- solid neocons since freakin' Nixon.

Hell, the day he got elected -- a whole year before 9/11 -- my family all looked at each other and said, "Fuck, now we'll go to war in Iraq."

http://www.cariboubarbie.com/

Ironically the donation link goes to Barack Obama's website for donations. Hah, I love it. :p

Will Hot Eve Kimchi Wife ever prove that there are communists in the Democratic party?

Edit: And furthermore, has he stopped beating his wife yet?

Nice!

By the way, is there a specific term for the logical fallacy brought up by the old hat I bolded?

I disagree again. I believe GWB was picked by the neocons to get them back into the White House to continue what they started under Bush I. I do not believe the Bush admin would ever have been anything but a warmongering, economy-busting, neocon folly, just on the basis of who was in his cabinet -- solid neocons since freakin' Nixon.

Hell, the day he got elected -- a whole year before 9/11 -- my family all looked at each other and said, "Fuck, now we'll go to war in Iraq."

I know the Neocons were mad as hell that Bush the First didn't go all the way in Iraq. At least that Bush had enough sense not to go in too deep. Plus the whole crazy ideology of: No one treads on the US. It's that Fucked up ideoloy that got us involved in Vietnam and got us involved in Iraq. Won't these stupid Neocons learn that war isn't the anwser for everything. Can't they learn it's 42. :p

I disagree again. I believe GWB was picked by the neocons to get them back into the White House to continue what they started under Bush I. I do not believe the Bush admin would ever have been anything but a warmongering, economy-busting, neocon folly, just on the basis of who was in his cabinet -- solid neocons since freakin' Nixon.

Hell, the day he got elected -- a whole year before 9/11 -- my family all looked at each other and said, "Fuck, now we'll go to war in Iraq."

interestingly, mccain was the neocon choice in the repub primaries of 2000

Frankly, I think the Republicans will win the 2012 election. Most economic predictions have Obama's plans failing almost immediately; socialism is not seen kindly here. (Please don't try to tell me he's not a socialist, I have the logic and numbers to prove otherwise.)

Actually, you appear to have illiterate misreadings of the Obama tax plan, but you can pretend that they are logic if it makes you feel better. Either way, you neither understand socialism nor understand economics, if you believe that any of the policies put forward by Obama are socialist in nature.

Also, Americans are fine with socialism. We love it plenty in our schools, our police, our firefighters, and our roads. What we don't like is stupid policy, be it bullshit trickle-down economics, or welfare badly in need of reform and cuts.

I really don't think a Huckabee/Romney ticket wouldn't win. Huckabee's true conservative nature would win the Republican base and Romney's sound economic policies would easily win the average American and the moderates. Unless these economic predictions for Obama are wrong and he does improve the economy, I can't see a Republican loss in '12.

1) The Huckster is economically liberal. Sorry. He's not a conservative.

2) All Romney has going for him is his hair. His business sense is nearly as bad as his consistency on the issues.

3) Moderates don't care about your silly ideology. We want a government that works and is concerned with working. That's what's wrong with the Republican party. You're happy to stuff shit down our throats, claiming that it's the ideologically right thing to do, but it's still shit. We've cottened on. You're no different than the Democrats under Jimmy Carter. We don't want your ideological purity. We want the be well fed, well off, and well protected, and we don't care what face you put on it.

the funny thing is, I've seen numerous people try to claim that they have proof, REAL UNDENIABLE PROOF that Obama is a socialist.

Yet not one, NOT FUCKING ONE OF THEM has demonstrated, shown, quoted, or even IMPLIED that any of Obama's policies will result in state or collective ownership of the means of production. That's what socialism is. By definition, it is that and nothing more.

Claims that Obama is "socialist" because he wants to "give checks to the poor" or "spread the wealth around" are bullshit, for the simple reason that this is simply not socialism. Words actually have meanings, real meanings, and nothing, not one thing, has been shown to indicate Obama supports socialism, as it is defined.

Social welfare? yes. Social interventionism? Maybe. But those are not socialism. Socialism involves the nationalization or communalization of the means of production. Absent that, nothing can be socialist, by definition.
I know, it's both annoying and yet funny how they don't know a thing about "Socialism" or "Communism" except that they've been instructed.

That it means giving lazy people money and being evil.

Your wrong on that one. You win by appealing to the largest minority in the world. The Individual. You tell the individual why the government has hurt them and what you will do to get Government out of the way and off their backs, and sadly you will lose these days.

Funny...there is not one thing the government has done which has hurt me as an individual.

All of my missteps were of my own making.

When did conservatism abandon the concept of personal responsibility?

If only George Bush would have gotten tough with the rest of the Axis of Evil and done away with them we would have had an even better freer world, but at elast he did something.

Yeah, he did something. He overextended our military to the point that we do not even have the capacity to realistically even threaten military action against Iran or North Korea, which have also made far greater strides towards WMDs than Iraq could have ever hoped for.

Often times, the threat of force is more powerful than the use of force...but try telling that to a Neocon.

Do you think North Korea would have ever tested a nuclear weapon if we had 150,000 troops ready and waiting to go in and kick ass instead of being stuck in Iraq busting down doors to catch religious nuts with car bombs and AK's?

Why not? Why should we sit idly by as some dictator sets up concentration camps for political prisoners and prisoners of conscience? Why should we do nothing in the face of torture, murder, rape, and genocide? We have a duty to topple those regimes and bring those responsible to justice. We did it to Nazi Germany and Baathist Iraq. That maybe a problem to you but it does not trouble me at all.

Why don't you go to your local recruiters office then, if it's such an important issue to you?

Which authoritarian nation would you like to be sent to first? We have a large list to go through. :rolleyes:

It is a shame that more political prisoners will be tortured and killed because CNN and the Bush Bashers posioned the minds of the people against wars to liberate the oppressed.

We need more intervention abroad to free the oppressed.

No, we do not. The oppressed need to stand up for themselves, or they will forever be dependent on the US taxpayers and the military that they pay for.

Until a nation is willing to fight for itself, no outside intervention will be of help.

There will not be a restoration of the Republican Party until true fiscal conservatives re-emerge from its base.

Until a legitimate Republican candidate has a serious debate about reducing spending and waste in the military, I will never consider the Republican party to be serious about "fiscal conservatism".

We have many, many good and true fiscal conservatives, but they can't seem to ever win the nomination. Men such as Huckabee, Romney, and Gingrich have all emerged in attempt to bring back the old glory days for the Republicans.

None of whom are fiscally conservative, BTW.

Frankly, I think the Republicans will win the 2012 election. Most economic predictions have Obama's plans failing almost immediately; socialism is not seen kindly here. (Please don't try to tell me he's not a socialist, I have the logic and numbers to prove otherwise.)

I'm quite certain that you have neither.

With even more taxes that Obama plans to increase on these people, their chance of achieving the American dream diminish immensly.

But, to some, that's fine. And that's not socialism. Agreed. However, what he plans to do with these payroll tax increases is what is socialist. Those taxes are going directly, via a check in the mail, to those that are currently unemployed.

Got a source on that one?

I'm betting you don't.

Nanatsu: Don't leave out Congress and Donald Rumsfield, it was after all Rumsfield, who was talking about invading Iraq 5 hours after 9/11.

Rumsfeld is the one who singlehandedly decided that he was smarter than two generations of military professionals, and as a result completely fucked up the Iraq war from the very beginning.

No punishment is too severe for his incompetence.

I know the Neocons were mad as hell that Bush the First didn't go all the way in Iraq. At least that Bush had enough sense not to go in too deep.

The neutering of the Iraqi armed forces in Desert Storm, and the containment of their remnants via no-fly zones and economic sanctions throughout the 1990's, all of which successfully guarded the energy source on which the entire global economy depends on, was quite possibly the greatest strategic success in US military history.

...so of course, the Neocons think it was a mistake.

Which is ridiculous. After 9/11... what was our number one objective? Catch/kill Osama.

And now, almost 2009... what progress have we made on that? Have we caught him? Or are we bound up in wars on two fronts?

The terrorists have accomplished every goal they set out for themselves.

1. Draw the U.S. into expensive long-term conflicts with little chance for a strategically successful disengagement?

Check.

2. Cripple the US economy via overspending on these wars and the subsequent increase in world oil prices, thereby reducing US standards of living in an attempt to bring this nation down to their level?

Check.

3. Via their hostile actions, encourage hawkish politicians to gain power in the US and destroy the very principles we are supposedly defending...again, bringing us down to their level?

Check.

4. Via the collateral damage of US military action, encourage radicalism and discourage moderates throughout the Islamic world, destabilizing key nations such as Pakistan?

Check.

If this is truly a "War", as many would have us believe, then the US is losing, and has been losing since day one.

It’s funny, I was thinking a very similar thing this morning. After the election, a lot of the far right “conservatives” began discussing “getting back to their roots”. They discussed things like RINOs, “not true conservatives”, and how “republican” had stopped meaning “conservative” and if they really wanted to win elections, they needed to get back to their conservative base philosophies.

Except the problem with that is I’m unsure when republicans were EVER at the “conservative base philosophies” so I’m unsure how they plan to return to them, and why they think that will help them win elections if they did. The only thing close to “real” conservatives in the last 50 years was Goldwater, who got royally schlacked. They try to point to Regan, but despite being truer to the “conservative” ideology than Bush, Bush, Dole, or McCain, was still, at his core, a sloppy mess of military interventionalist, bloated deficit spending, poor economic policies, and was an advocate of National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, a “carrot and the stick” approach to enforcing a national drinking age that was one of the most debilitating blows to the concept of states rights.

As much as conservatives might want to talk about “getting back to basics” and winning elections, there’s never been a clear example of a true conservative in the last 60 years of American politics actually winning a presidential election. The fact is, the American people, as a whole, don’t seem to care much for conservative ideologies, which has forced the conservative side to create an alliance of what we now see as the modern Republican party. Strange bedfellows indeed, as the religious right and the war hawk neo-cons seem utterly inconsistent with the “starve the beast” and personal freedom mantra of the conservative movement.

Most damning of all, the “kick the bums out!” calls by “true conservatives” rings all the more hollow when, despite their criticisms of Bush and McCain, the ultimate fact is, these were the people the party chose. These were the people that won the party’s support. Claims of “he’s not a true conservative!” sound silly and petulant when all those conservatives turned out in droves to vote for Bush, twice. It could be said that they weren’t willfully doing so, just dupes who fell for the whole “compassionate conservative”, “uniter not a divider” schpiel. The first time. But they really have no excuse for voting for the man the second time around. Terms like “conservative” have no real meaning, other than a self referential one. Conservative means what people who call themselves conservative define it as. And the conservative men of choice were Bush and McCain.

the funny thing is, I've seen numerous people try to claim that they have proof, REAL UNDENIABLE PROOF that Obama is a socialist.

Yet not one, NOT FUCKING ONE OF THEM has demonstrated, shown, quoted, or even IMPLIED that any of Obama's policies will result in state or collective ownership of the means of production. That's what socialism is. By definition, it is that and nothing more.

Claims that Obama is "socialist" because he wants to "give checks to the poor" or "spread the wealth around" are bullshit, for the simple reason that this is simply not socialism. Words actually have meanings, real meanings, and nothing, not one thing, has been shown to indicate Obama supports socialism, as it is defined.

Social welfare? yes. Social interventionism? Maybe. But those are not socialism. Socialism involves the nationalization or communalization of the means of production. Absent that, nothing can be socialist, by definition.

That is one fucking epic pile of win right there.

*worships*

By the way, is there a specific term for the logical fallacy brought up by the old hat I bolded?
There is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions)

pseudo religeon and pseudo free enterprise are a maredge made in some mythical hot dark place. the problem is, their core constituency they have to fall back on is greed.
(more like the flim flam holding out of the carrot of greed and then bate and switch for anyone who isn't part of their own inner circle.)
contrary to popular myth, the sustainability of makiavellianism is highly exagerated.

Nanatsu: Don't leave out Congress and Donald Rumsfield, it was after all Rumsfield, who was talking about invading Iraq 5 hours after 9/11.

Aye aye.

And no, it isn't racism or Jingoism. It is that America is a great nation, and that it was made as such because of our Economic, Political, Religious, and Personal Freedoms, and that Big Government (and High Taxes on the Michael Phelps of the Economy) only drag this country down.

This is a huge thread to page 15 and I haven't read it all, so if someone has shot this down already Sorry.

See my bolding. I can not see how republicans pull of this BS propoganda that they are the responsible party. Are all the republican voters that blind? Clinton left the economy in a surplus. The Reagan/Bush years did not have the economy in a surplus.

There is no degree of social programs that will cost more than a huge war that was done to enrich war profiteers within the republican party, and their close friends.

So, if I understand this Miami Shore person correctly, the only issue he cares about is Cuba, and he lacks any understanding of the alignment of the Democratic Party?

So, if I understand this Miami Shore person correctly, the only issue he cares about is Cuba?Yup. He's an exile Cuban, which would explain why it's so important to him.

So, if I understand this Miami Shore person correctly, the only issue he cares about is Cuba, and he lacks any understanding of the alignment of the Democratic Party?
and the fate of elian gonzalez.

and the fate of elian gonzalez.That could be lumped into the "How do you treat Cuba?" pot.

That could be lumped into the "How do you treat Cuba?" pot.
yes but it is an obsession of his that stands out within his cuban obsession.

Some people are STILL obsessed with the Elian Gonzalez affair?

Some people are STILL obsessed with the Elian Gonzalez affair?To our knowledge, only Miami Shores.

To our knowledge, only Miami Shores.

And perhaps other Cuban refuges. I had a Cuban in one of my classes at the university and she said they were all waiting for Castro to croak so they could go back and obtain their possesions (ie land and other holdings) in Cuba.

And perhaps other Cuban refuges. I had a Cuban in one of my classes at the university and she said they were all waiting for Castro to croak so they could go back and obtain their possesions (ie land and other holdings) in Cuba.

Yeah, Castro will croak sooner or later, but he's leaving Raúl in power. Same thing with a different face. So, I don't think these Cubans in exile will be able to return to Cuba to recuperate possessions in a long time still.

lol.

Yeah, Castro will croak sooner or later, but he's leaving Raúl in power. Same thing with a different face. So, I don't think these Cubans in exile will be able to return to Cuba to recuperate possessions in a long time still.

So will we hear chants for invading Cuba and deposing Raul as well? Or should we see if the CIA has better luck with knocking off Raul than they did with his brother?:p

So will we hear chants for invading Cuba and deposing Raul as well? Or should we see if the CIA has better luck with knocking off Raul than they did with his brother?:p

You probably will, unless the US finally ceases to bother Cuba's regime and resign to the idea that a system like that can work and it finally lifts the damn embargo. *nod*

That, or hope for the CIA to have, as you say, better luck eliminating Raúl than it did in eliminating Fidel. *shrugs*

contrary to popular myth, the sustainability of makiavellianism is highly exagerated.

Why the hell do you keep using that word? I really don't think you have a clue what it means, let alone how to spell it.

Why the hell do you keep using that word? I really don't think you have a clue what it means, let alone how to spell it.

You're right on that count. According to Google, Makiavellianism refers to a discourse by Octavio Paz, a Mexican intellectual.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/discourse/v023/23.2grenier.pdf

And it that case it's written "Maquiavelianism".

I think though, Cameroi's referring to this: Machiavellianism.

Which means:
The political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Machiavellism

You're right on that count. According to Google, Makiavellianism refers to a discourse by Octavio Paz, a Mexican intellectual.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/discourse/v023/23.2grenier.pdf

And it that case it's written "Maquiavelianism".

I think though, Cameroi's referring to this: Machiavellianism.

Which means:

The political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Machiavellism

Sounds like the Neocon doctrine to me.

Yeah, Castro will croak sooner or later, but he's leaving Raúl in power. Same thing with a different face. So, I don't think these Cubans in exile will be able to return to Cuba to recuperate possessions in a long time still.


I just shrugged my shoulders at what she was saying mainly because Fidel Castro has entrenched himself very well into Cuban society. But this conversation was before Raúl took a dominate role in Cuba, so at the time I think she was throughly convinced that once Fidel Castro was gone that would be the end. But with Fidel pushing Raúl more into the leadership postion, she may have altered her position.

To our knowledge, only Miami Shores.

I shit you not. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/elian.htm)

Sorry if this seems a bit off topic, but I just had to say it.

I shit you not. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/elian.htm)

What the Fudge?! :eek:

And perhaps other Cuban refuges. I had a Cuban in one of my classes at the university and she said they were all waiting for Castro to croak so they could go back and obtain their possesions (ie land and other holdings) in Cuba.
it is sad to live in the delusion that they will ever "get back" their land in cuba.

Here's hoping that Obama has enough sense to dispose of the ridiculous embargo.

Here's hoping that Obama has enough sense to dispose of the ridiculous embargo.

I rather doubt the ability of anyone to do that. The same crowd who would rather invade Cuba would throw up a shitstorm.

Here's hoping that Obama has enough sense to dispose of the ridiculous embargo.
i have some hope of that. i saw him say something about revamping our cuba policy but i dont remember the details.

I rather doubt the ability of anyone to do that. The same crowd who would rather invade Cuba would throw up a shitstorm.
then he should do it right away so that the political storm will die down before he has to run for re-election.

I rather doubt the ability of anyone to do that. The same crowd who would rather invade Cuba would throw up a shitstorm.

The "invade Cuba" crowd is welcome to give it their best shot. They know how to build a raft, don't they?

The "invade Cuba" crowd is welcome to give it their best shot. They know how to build a raft, don't they?

Didn't they try that in 1961?:p

The Republicans who aren't happy with the neocons or religious right have to leave and found a new party. The crazies won't leave, and can't be kicked out.

Bush Mccain are not neo cons.
Neo cons are the non religious elements of the republicans party.
they are former democrats hence the term neo con since they are new conservatives.
bush and Mccain are paleo cons.

I am going to have to disagree. Mccain and Bush represent the interventionist and managerial side of the republican party, with generally secular views compared to some other republicans. [for good or for bad]

Paleo-conservatives would oppose the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, oppose no child left behind, oppose our alliance with Israel, and oppose the highly open border policy. Bush and Mccain would support it.

___________

At any rate, the only way for republicans to regain their hold of power is to focus upon the policy of non interventionism, both foreign and domestic. People can better rally to the cause of anti-war, anti-nanny-state republicanism than they can the controlling policies of Bush. The republican party Can't run on social conservatism if it wants to save the nation from impending totalitarianism.

What the Fudge?! :eek:

I have found that dealing with what I find on the Internet is a lot easier with coping mechanisms (http://www.e4.com/wtf/animations/we-love-the-internet.html). Sometimes you can even find stuff to help you cope with real life (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/Credit+Crunch/).