Are you a neo-con?

Are you a neo-con? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 3:51:57 AM)
The term "neo-con" was once described as someone "liberal that had been mugged by reality", keeping in mind that the American usage of "liberal" is different than the original, European one. So, we can say a neo-con is someone that was once a leftist, but has changed their mind and become more conservative. Speaking for myself, I think it was more a case of realizing, years ago, that leftism was not without its flaws. I'm not at all sure I became "more" conservative, as I have always had conservative beliefs, and still have liberal and leftist ones, as well.

sophia37 -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 5:06:07 AM)
If I were required to label myself as something new, I'd prefer to step into the title of neauvo-riche.

Level -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 5:14:45 AM)
Not a bad category to be in, sophia, or so I assume [:D] I often think about how worthwhile, or worthless, all these labels are.....

Sanity -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 5:49:08 AM)
I am a Neocon, and I am proud of it. See my tag line? I gave that shit when I was still a Liberal, or whatever they're called these days. The word 'Liberal' is still a dirty word, right?

RCdc -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 5:56:57 AM)
Ah Mr.Level - I am just meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee[sm=mrpuffy.gif] Peace the.dark.

LadyEllen -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 6:21:30 AM)
No, havent got one yet. The surgery is planned soon though. Oh....... neo-con? I thought you said neo-c....... E

caitlyn -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 6:31:44 AM)
I'm issue based, and range from hyper-liberal, to ultra-conservative. Generally though, I'm a neo-isolationist. Excessive alliances tend to turn regional conflicts into larger wars. I know organizations like the United Nations, sound good on paper - Lets get all nations together for dialog!!! - but the truth is that organizations like these tend to get political, very quickly. Worse still when you have unbalanced power ... those partners tend to want a bigger slice of the pie, which makes these organizations somewhat useless. NATO as it exists today, serves no purpose other than being a threat to all non-member nations. In short, I think we should be that big powerful nation, with the strong military, that spends it's efforts making itself and industrial giant, and minding it's own fucking business in other areas.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 6:37:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level The term "neo-con" was once described as someone "liberal that had been mugged by reality"......... Or conversely a Liberal is someone who hasn't been mugged.......yet !

Owner59 -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 7:13:37 AM)
Well, there is the dictionary definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative Today,what distinguishes neo-cons from regular conservatives/republicans,is a think tank called PNAC. Project for the New American Century But today`s neo-con,is nothing like what Barry Goldwater envisioned. Goldwater had integrity and solid values.He would never "sell America,down-river", the way today`s neo-cons have. Today's neo-cons, really doen`t have a core set of values,like Goldwater had.Whatever values or principals a neo-con needs on any particular day,are neo-con values.In other words,today`s neo-con has, no solid values or principals. Of course they say they hold values and principals,but they shift like sand,defending on witch way the wind blows. Remember the reasons for the Iraq invasion?WMD,ect.Then the reason changed,by the week,till we got all the way up to nation building and spreading freedom,by the 500lb. bomb load.That`s neo-con thinking.Say what ever works,forget about what you said yesterday. Remember all of bush`s speeches and positions,before the 2000 election?He talked the old conservative lines,like "no US intervention abroad",or no use of US troops as the "world`s police",etc.You know,old conservative values? A neo-con is the opposite of all that. Something else should be pointed out... To a man,PNAC is a who`s who of the assholes, who got into the mess in Iraq.They include Dick Chaney,William Crystal,Donald Rumsfeld,Richard Pearl, Paul Wolfowitz,and most of the "chicken hawks" in bush`s administration. They are the main reason why we invaded Iraq,and the provider of most of the bullshit lies,that fooled America into invading Iraq. At first,when everything was going their way in Iraq,they proudly called themselves "neo-cons".They wanted to distinguish themselves from regular,normal conservatives,and referred to themselves as "neo-cons",with pride. Today,they run from the term,in shame.Watch PNAC founder William crystal`s face,when asked about PNAC.Like a deer caught in the headlights,and very telling.It would be very funny,if it weren`t so murderously tragic. I think this is the only time Crystal has had tough questions asked of him.It`s an example of how lame our "real "press is,when it takes a comidian to ask any real questions ,of this man. http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=63216&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml%3Fstart%3D316&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

Owner59 -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 7:30:09 AM)
I believe that history will record that PNAC and the neo-cons,were the main reason we got involved in Iraq. If you want some insights into the Iraq invasion,and how the administration operates,google PNAC and read their website,as well as the other pieces done on them.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 7:31:59 AM)
You are right, it is sad when the most biting newsreporting goes on in comedy.

meatcleaver -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 8:02:46 AM)
The street definition of a neo-con is a 'turd with a nervous system'

Sanity -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 8:24:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The street definition of a neo-con is a 'turd with a nervous system' Wow, you and SimplyMichael are really digging deep this morning.

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 8:25:10 AM)
Children, please. XI

popeye1250 -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 10:34:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I'm issue based, and range from hyper-liberal, to ultra-conservative. Generally though, I'm a neo-isolationist. Excessive alliances tend to turn regional conflicts into larger wars. I know organizations like the United Nations, sound good on paper - Lets get all nations together for dialog!!! - but the truth is that organizations like these tend to get political, very quickly. Worse still when you have unbalanced power ... those partners tend to want a bigger slice of the pie, which makes these organizations somewhat useless. NATO as it exists today, serves no purpose other than being a threat to all non-member nations. In short, I think we should be that big powerful nation, with the strong military, that spends it's efforts making itself and industrial giant, and minding it's own fucking business in other areas. Caitlyn for President! Well said. That pretty much sums up my beliefs too. I'm a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. Want to smoke pot or have gay marriage? No problem but lets do away with foreign aid and put Troops on the Mexican border not S.Korea's or Iraq's borders. And like Ron Paul and a lot of other Americans I believe in Non-Intervention! I'm pretty much an Independant but issue driven like Caitlyn. And, I'm not a "Neo-Isolationist", I've been Isolationist ever since I was in the Navy 35 years ago. And unfortunately history has proven me right ever since. I don't understand the Neo-Liberal thinking that says we need to get "out" of Iraq but "into" Darfur or other countries. I think that people who do feel that way should pick up a rifle and do it themselves or stfu. They say "we" should "do something" about ...fill in the blank. But, "they" don't ever want to be the ones who "do" something about ...fill in the blank. "Ok, I'll give you a ride down to the Military Recruiter's office!" "Whoa, whoa, wait a minute! I didn't say "I" would "do" anything about it!" lol I just tell people like that "STFU or go down to the Recruiter's office!" If they were walking down the street and two guys poured out of the dew drop inn fighting each other would they go over and get involved in it?

NorthernGent -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 12:35:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level The term "neo-con" was once described as someone "liberal that had been mugged by reality", keeping in mind that the American usage of "liberal" is different than the original, European one. So, we can say a neo-con is someone that was once a leftist, but has changed their mind and become more conservative. Speaking for myself, I think it was more a case of realizing, years ago, that leftism was not without its flaws. I'm not at all sure I became "more" conservative, as I have always had conservative beliefs, and still have liberal and leftist ones, as well. From my limited understanding: The term neo-conservative was a reaction to Realpolitik; that is, a reaction to Henry Kissenger and associates' brand of US foreign policy. The neo-conservatives (1970s) believed this was wrong, and that US foreign policy should be aimed at helping people around the world i.e. helping in the eyes of the US government, which amounts to attempting to install market democracy in foreign nations in the belief that this is the only way to live life. Reagan employed some of the neo-conservatives of the 1970s, and built their foreign policy around this ideal i.e. the US knows best, and it follows that the US government must invade places like Nicaragua to show them the light. At his/her core, a neo-conservative believes that he/she is right, and his/her one true answer is underpinned by market democracy and Christian morals. Left or right isn't the common denominator, these people believe they are right, and are so righteous that they will use violence to install their ideas and expect people to thank them for it later because they know best: same as the Bolsheviks. P.S. Liberalism and neo-conservatism are not remotely alike; liberalism is underpinned by individual sovereignty, regardless of nationality, race, religion etc, unlike neo-conservatism which is a case of "we'll show you how it's going to be".

popeye1250 -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 1:10:04 PM)
NG, so you'd be a Non-Interventionist too?

NorthernGent -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 1:18:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 NG, so you'd be a Non-Interventionist too? Pretty much so, and I'm not that far off a pacifist...which I suppose is where you and I depart...SHOOT THE FUCKER!!!! only joking, Popeye ;-)

CuriousLord -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 3:55:33 PM)
"Leftist mugged by reality" might work for me in ways. My political stance largely revolves around allowing individuals self-determination while recognizing the social of social-evolutionary catalysts, such as capitalism, and the consquences of rights. (Such as, giving someone the right to shoot randomly into crowds of people may strike one as in contradiction to the individuals in the crowd's right to live.) Pure leftism, to me, is flawed in that it doesn't recognize that the consquences of its own ideals are contradictions in reality; that granting some rights that increase liberity a bit can greatly decrease liberity in their practice. Pure rightism, to me, is flawed in that it fails to serve individuals as instances, making the clumsy approximation of individuals as the average of the whole. (Think sigma[(rights)^2]/population as the right-ist approximation of individual liberty.) However one comes to understand the world, whether it begins with the notion that individual liberties are paramount (leftism), that the total social production is paramount (rightism), or from some other view point, this one's path probably shouldn't strike others as vital, but where it leads him. Oddly enough, much of our controversy seems to stem more from a disagreement on how to achieve common goals than on what goals should be. PS- Neat to see a different definition of "neo-con". From these boards, I was beginning to gather that "neo-con" is what extremists called moderates these days.

Owner59 -> RE: Are you a neo-con? (9/20/2007 4:17:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord "Leftist mugged by reality" might work for me in ways. My political stance largely revolves around allowing individuals self-determination while recognizing the social of social-evolutionary catalysts, such as capitalism, and the consquences of rights. (Such as, giving someone the right to shoot randomly into crowds of people may strike one as in contradiction to the individuals in the crowd's right to live.) Pure leftism, to me, is flawed in that it doesn't recognize that the consquences of its own ideals are contradictions in reality; that granting some rights that increase liberity a bit can greatly decrease liberity in their practice. Pure rightism, to me, is flawed in that it fails to serve individuals as instances, making the clumsy approximation of individuals as the average of the whole. (Think sigma[(rights)^2]/population as the right-ist approximation of individual liberty.) However one comes to understand the world, whether it begins with the notion that individual liberties are paramount (leftism), that the total social production is paramount (rightism), or from some other view point, this one's path probably shouldn't strike others as vital, but where it leads him. Oddly enough, much of our controversy seems to stem more from a disagreement on how to achieve common goals than on what goals should be. PS- Neat to see a different definition of "neo-con". From these boards, I was beginning to gather that "neo-con" is what extremists called moderates these days. You`re a 21 year old,13 or 14 when bush stole the election.Maybe you need a little more time to form your world view. Consquences of rights,....yeah right.....pfffuughh!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02