vyo476
Well-Known Member
Isn't that what I said?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
What's a neocon?
- Thread starter USMC the Almighty
- Start date
Isn't that what I said?
Werbung:
NEO as in... Nazi Elections Officer
CON as in... to fool or hustle
A Nazi Elections Officer trying to hustle you for your vote... yep... sounds about right.
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
NEO as in... Nazi Elections Officer
CON as in... to fool or hustle
A Nazi Elections Officer trying to hustle you for your vote... yep... sounds about right.
You would be so much more interesting if you actually knew something. You are becoming very much like steveox in your posts.
Nazi's, by the way, were on the left, not the right. A thread already exists on the topic. If you feel like you can present a case for nazis being on the left, by all means, stop on by.
Truth-Bringer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2007
- Messages
- 880
And if you continue to overspend as new money comes in, then you are always, Always, ALWAYS still an irresponsible, incompetent fool.
Truth-Bringer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2007
- Messages
- 880
Exactly. A Neoconservative is a conservative on social issues, an interventionist on foreign policy, and a liberal on economic issues. They differ from liberals in spending only by a small degree in that they still encourage some individual investment. For example, they attack socialized medicine, but support Bush's Prescription drug "entitlement." It's pure hypocrisy in most cases.
A Neoconservative seems to be someone who hates government spending when it's initiated by a Democrat, but doesn't mind at all when it's initiated by a Republican.
Neo-cons are obsessed with social control. They want to control women's bodies, control what people can see or read, control people's private sex acts, ostracize the gays, encourage governmental spying on it's own innocent private citizens, allow multiple religious beliefs as long as it is understood that in reality only their single Christian religion is the view of the government and will always reign supreme over all.
Sounds pretty Nazi like to me. Put Dick Cheney in a a pair of black jack boots and paint the picture.
Although Nazi might still be a little weak for old Dick... how about Sith Lord of the Empire... Luke I'm your father!!!
Sounds pretty Nazi like to me. Put Dick Cheney in a a pair of black jack boots and paint the picture.
Although Nazi might still be a little weak for old Dick... how about Sith Lord of the Empire... Luke I'm your father!!!
Now Top Gun, in all fairness. You should know there are people out there trying to kill us. The federal government is the great and wise almighty and knows what is best for you. In an effort to keep you safe from
A. Yourself
B. non Christians
C. the flood of illegal immigrants that we only want to talk about and accomplish nothing
So, in the meantime, make sure you work an extra job so the federal government can spend your money in ways that are wasteful. Or else you will be water-boarded.
With best regards,
Dick Cheney
A. Yourself
B. non Christians
C. the flood of illegal immigrants that we only want to talk about and accomplish nothing
So, in the meantime, make sure you work an extra job so the federal government can spend your money in ways that are wasteful. Or else you will be water-boarded.
With best regards,
Dick Cheney
Werbung:
Jeffrey Neuzil
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 53
Defining Neo-conservatism: An Impossible Task?
The best way to define a Neo-con is probable to read some of the best work that has been done by them; I consider that to be the work of William and Bill Crystal, and although some of them deny this label (because it has admittedly, and unfortunatly, become a term of abuse: This is wrong, which is not to say that Neo-conservatism is not an ideology, to some degree, that seeks to project and mold the world in a certain definite way); but what has always struck me is that there is not one version of this orientation but many: Consider just the fact that within, so called, Neo-conservatism, there are people who support and oppose the Iraqi war. My personal favorite author is Francis Fukyamma (I may have spelled the name wrong); his book "The End of History and the Last Man" is some of the best writing in political philosophy and in Neo-conservatism; if i am not mistaken, he has changed his position on the war, once supporting, now opposing it: So it is important to see the diversity of views within the "movement," if it is even proper to say that it is a movement. A still more vexed question is the relationship of Leo Strauss and Alaxander Kojeve to Neo-conservatism; I have nowhere seen this question treated with sensitivity to how difficult it would be to demonstrate exactly what the relationship is: The best answer to be given, if one is ventured at all, is that there is no single answer that would do justice to the diversity of perspectives and approaches or appropriations of Leo Strauss to this putative movement. The problem is that there is a strong tendency for all of us—myself as much as anyone else—to want to find the unifying thread and the easy answer, but the more one studies—as one learns from great thinkers, like Nietzsche, is that these facile answers will not due, even though we have to get our bearings by starting somewhere—but we should never stop questioning, for no surer sign of the death of philosophy exists than the claim of "final wisdom."
The best way to define a Neo-con is probable to read some of the best work that has been done by them; I consider that to be the work of William and Bill Crystal, and although some of them deny this label (because it has admittedly, and unfortunatly, become a term of abuse: This is wrong, which is not to say that Neo-conservatism is not an ideology, to some degree, that seeks to project and mold the world in a certain definite way); but what has always struck me is that there is not one version of this orientation but many: Consider just the fact that within, so called, Neo-conservatism, there are people who support and oppose the Iraqi war. My personal favorite author is Francis Fukyamma (I may have spelled the name wrong); his book "The End of History and the Last Man" is some of the best writing in political philosophy and in Neo-conservatism; if i am not mistaken, he has changed his position on the war, once supporting, now opposing it: So it is important to see the diversity of views within the "movement," if it is even proper to say that it is a movement. A still more vexed question is the relationship of Leo Strauss and Alaxander Kojeve to Neo-conservatism; I have nowhere seen this question treated with sensitivity to how difficult it would be to demonstrate exactly what the relationship is: The best answer to be given, if one is ventured at all, is that there is no single answer that would do justice to the diversity of perspectives and approaches or appropriations of Leo Strauss to this putative movement. The problem is that there is a strong tendency for all of us—myself as much as anyone else—to want to find the unifying thread and the easy answer, but the more one studies—as one learns from great thinkers, like Nietzsche, is that these facile answers will not due, even though we have to get our bearings by starting somewhere—but we should never stop questioning, for no surer sign of the death of philosophy exists than the claim of "final wisdom."
Similar threads
