The Straussian Neo-Conservative - I Suggest You Read This

[theHawk]

Definately a good read. Its very apparent how the neo-cons and liberals share the same goals.

 

[Diuretic]

Definately a good read. Its very apparent how the neo-cons and liberals share the same goals.

And what would those goals be? I mean if you'e going to assert that the "liberals" have certain goals then you'll have to show the "liberals" expressing those goals and not give your own description of what you think they are.

 

[Larkinn]

We get it. Real conservatives are aware that liberals have invaded the Republican Party. Neoconservativsm has its roots in liberalism (not the classical version) and there are more similarities between neocons and liberals than there are differences.

What is your point? To prove that?

Neoconservatism has its roots in liberalism. However there is a reason they all left and joined the Republican party. There are most definitely NOT more similarities between neocons and modern day liberals than there are differences. In fact I would say they are almost polar opposites.

Yet if we substitute the Dems for the current Reps we will have even more the same problems and slide into socialism. Our only hope is to kick out quasi-liberals from the Republican party and move back to the right. If our leaders are against us how would we solve the "deeper problems"?

Neoconservatism is one of the reasons your party survived, son.

 

[Larkinn]

Definately a good read. Its very apparent how the neo-cons and liberals share the same goals.

*sigh*. I fully ackowledge that when it comes to subtelties, or logic people can make mistakes...but jesus christ, all you had to do was look up neoconservatism to find out how wrong this is.

One of these policies[neocon policies] most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the "have-nots" and the "haves" engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability.

Main belief #1 of neocons...cutting taxes to stimulate eocnomic growth. You think this corresponds to Liberal policies?

This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.

Main belief #2...part 1: Neocons do not like the welfare state.

Main belief #2...part 2: Neocons do not mind concentrated government power (Patriot act, wireless wiretapping, etc, etc).

First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing.

Main belief #3...part 1: Patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment.
Main belief #3...park 2: World government is a terrible idea.

Yes...they sound so incredibly liberal.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3000&R=785F27881

 

[Ninja]

Uh, that's an op-ed. By the founder of Neoconservatism nonetheless. He has a vested interest in selling his ideology to skeptical Paleocons, hence he tries to paint Neoconservatism as being closely related to traditional Conservatism w.r.t. everything but foreign policy. Saying "gotcha!" with an op-ed is laughable. Marx's writings had nothing to do with how Communism played itself out, just as Mr. Kristol's op-ed has nothing to do with how NeoCons govern (like libtards). Where in the Manifesto does Marx mention Gulags again?

 

[Larkinn]

Uh, that's an op-ed. By the founder of Neoconservatism nonetheless. He has a vested interest in selling his ideology to skeptical Paleocons, hence he tries to paint Neoconservatism as being closely related to traditional Conservatism w.r.t. everything but foreign policy. Saying "gotcha!" with an op-ed is laughable. Marx's writings had nothing to do with how Communism played itself out, just as Mr. Kristol's op-ed has nothing to do with how NeoCons govern (like libtards). Where in the Manifesto does Marx mention Gulags again?

I would think that the founder of neoconservatism would have just a *slight* idea of what neoconservatism entails, don't you? Oh, no...of course you have a much better idea of it. These are the ideals and what they want, not what actually happens when they get into power. By the way, tell me who supports the neocon movement more...the liberals or conservatives?

Neocons have far more similarities to conservatism than liberalism. Get over it, son. Those idiotic and failed policies are yours, not mine.

 

[Ninja]

It's funny that Paulitics' article claimed that deceit is one of Neoconservatism's main tenets ("Maintain A Culture Of Lying And Carry On A Perpetual Confusion Campaign") yet you're saying that Irving Kristol is to be taken at his word. Which is it? I hate cliches, but you can't have your cake and eat it too, guys.

He has a vested interest in linking Paleo- and Neoconservatism: Helping his son sell magazines. It's that simple.

As for who supports Neoconservatism - sorry, I'm not going to let you do your usual prevarication schtick. It's a damn shame that Neocons have hijacked the Republican party, and that traditional conservatives are responsible for keeping them there for 6 years unchecked, but no one claimed otherwise. You have no where to go with that one bud.

The fact is, Neocons govern like liberals. Bush is JFK with a drawl. Sew up your vaginal orifice and deal with it like a man.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Neoconservatism has its roots in liberalism. However there is a reason they all left and joined the Republican party. There are most definitely NOT more similarities between neocons and modern day liberals than there are differences. In fact I would say they are almost polar opposites.

Perhaps opposites in regard to several social issues such as abortion, gays, womens lib, the death penalty, etc. and in some methodology of implementation.

However, there are many other more important similarities between neoconservatism and liberalism:

No use for democracy
Against individualism, liberty, legalism and constitutionalism.
Elitists
Liars
Secretive
Deceitful
Entitled to rule
Contempt for the unwashed masses
Cannot debate well
Goal is to change the world, not understand it
No morality
They recognize neither God nor moral imperatives.
Nihilistic in the sense that both believe there is no rational foundation for morality
The State Is Omnipotent
Political Expediency And Murder Become Virtue
Often directly at odds with plain historical facts
Maintain a culture of lying through a compliant media
Carry on a perpetual campaign to confuse the public
Strauss argued against a society containing a multiplicity of coexisting religions
Strauss believed in, and proposed, a State religion
Strauss was an atheist, and believed that in the absence of God, morality has no grounding

 

[Larkinn]

It's funny that Paulitics' article claimed that deceit is one of Neoconservatism's main tenets ("Maintain A Culture Of Lying And Carry On A Perpetual Confusion Campaign") yet you're saying that Irving Kristol is to be taken at his word. Which is it? I hate cliches, but you can't have your cake and eat it too, guys.

Psssst...me and Paulitics are different people and don't always agree. Nor are neocons all the same.

He has a vested interest in linking Paleo- and Neoconservatism: Helping his son sell magazines. It's that simple.

Yay for ad hominems.

The fact is, Neocons govern like liberals. Bush is JFK with a drawl. Sew up your vaginal orifice and deal with it like a man.

Bush is nothing like JFK, nor is he similar to liberalism. There is a reason liberals hate him so much.

 

[Larkinn]

Perhaps opposites in regard to several social issues such as abortion, gays, womens lib, the death penalty, etc. and in some methodology of implementation.

However, there are many other more important similarities between neoconservatism and liberalism:

No use for democracy
Against individualism, liberty, legalism and constitutionalism.
Elitists
Liars
Secretive
Deceitful
Entitled to rule
Contempt for the unwashed masses
Cannot debate well
Goal is to change the world, not understand it
No morality
They recognize neither God nor moral imperatives.
Nihilistic in the sense that both believe there is no rational foundation for morality
The State Is Omnipotent
Political Expediency And Murder Become Virtue
Often directly at odds with plain historical facts
Maintain a culture of lying through a compliant media
Carry on a perpetual campaign to confuse the public
Strauss argued against a society containing a multiplicity of coexisting religions
Strauss believed in, and proposed, a State religion
Strauss was an atheist, and believed that in the absence of God, morality has no grounding

Your support includes that you think both are liars? Are you seriously this stupid? Do some reading about liberalism then get back to me. Jesus Christ...your ignorance is just staggering.

 

[Ninja]

Psssst...me and Paulitics are different people and don't always agree.

Your Neoconserv... Er, Liberal grammar aside... Paulitics believes that deceit is one of the fundamental tenets of Neoconservatism. Do you agree or disagree? I ask, because, well... That's what everyone was discussing before you showed up and started your typical stall/prevaricate/change the subject game.

Yay for ad hominems.

Aww, wook at Warkinn defending poor widdle Iwving Kwistol fwom da mean ad hominem attacks

Go blow it out your ass, dickwad.

Bush is nothing like JFK, nor is he similar to liberalism.

Bush is extremely similar to JFK from a policy perspective. To argue otherwise shows total ignorance towards modern American history.

Many of the prominent Neoconservatives are former liberal peaceniks turned Cold Warrior hawks. They surrounded JFK, and now they surround Bush.

There is a reason liberals hate him so much.

Liberals, particularly the White affluent ones, hate themselves. They see themselves in Bush and his policies. This is why Bush is so widely hated amongst Liberal circles.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Your support includes that you think both are liars? Are you seriously this stupid? Do some reading about liberalism then get back to me. Jesus Christ...your ignorance is just staggering.

What a dickwad reply. My list is what is staggering you. You are just flummoxed. And if you think liberals are all about truth, you're the libtard who needs to do some reading.
Try this for starters: http://www.libfibs.com/

 

[Larkinn]

Your Neoconserv... Er, Liberal grammar aside... Paulitics believes that deceit is one of the fundamental tenets of Neoconservatism. Do you agree or disagree? I ask, because, well... That's what everyone was discussing before you showed up and started your typical stall/prevaricate/change the subject game.

Yes...everyone was talking about deceit before I showed up. Is that why you and the OP are the only time the words deceit were mentioned? And I disagree.

Aww, wook at Warkinn defending poor widdle Iwving Kwistol fwom da mean ad hominem attacks

Go blow it out your ass, dickwad.

No, actually I was pointing out your logical fallacy. I don't care much about him, but I find it amusing that your arguing style is so piss poor.

Bush is extremely similar to JFK from a policy perspective. To argue otherwise shows total ignorance towards modern American history.

No, he is not.

Many of the prominent Neoconservatives are former liberal peaceniks turned Cold Warrior hawks. They surrounded JFK, and now they surround Bush.

Their views have changed, just slightly, in the past 40 years.

Liberals, particularly the White affluent ones, hate themselves. They see themselves in Bush and his policies. This is why Bush is so widely hated amongst Liberal circles.

Wow...quite the conspiracy theorist aren't we.

 

[Larkinn]

What a dickwad reply. My list is what is staggering you. You are just flummoxed. And if you think liberals are all about truth, you're the libtard who needs to do some reading.
Try this for starters: http://www.libfibs.com/

Your list is staggeing in its idiocy. And your right I am slightly flummoxed. I find it much harder to reply to posts that don't even meet a minimum competency level. I mean I simply don't have the time to explain things you should know from a halfway decent education. And yes many liberals lie. As do conservatives. Welcome to the world, little boy, its a human trait that happens all around you. If you think its limited to a political ideology you are profoundly, and troublingly, naive.

 

[Ninja]

Pointing out Irving Kristol's conflict of interest is a circumstantial ad hominem. I'm sure your Logic 101A teacher at the local JC will give you a gold star for the effort. [RETARD]GOOD JOB LARKY![/RETARD]

What's hilarious is that you're too fucking stupid (another free ad hominem - go off on another one of your libtarded wild goose chases!) to realize that your counterpoint was also a circumstantial ad hominem. Kinda funny how your asinine attempts at sidetracking come back to bite ya in the ass, huh?

No, he is not.

Is too time infinity What are you, thirteen years old?

 

[Larkinn]

Pointing out Irving Kristol's conflict of interest is a circumstantial ad hominem. I'm sure your Logic 101A teacher at the local JC will give you a gold star for the effort. [RETARD]GOOD JOB LARKY![/RETARD]

Actually I've already proven my logic skills, son. By the way, you don't need the opening retard quotes...with you posting its assumed. And as for the closing quotes...well those are a lie with you. And just to enlighten you a bit, pointing out the conflict of interest is not, by itself, an ad hominem. Where it becomes an ad hominem is when you stupidly assumed he was lying/incorrect because of the conflict of interest.

What's hilarious is that you're too fucking stupid (another free ad hominem - go off on another one of your libtarded wild goose chases!)

Actually thats not an ad hominem, moron. And by the way, when I accuse you, correctly, or making logical fallacies that is not a "wild goose chase".

to realize that your counterpoint was also a circumstantial ad hominem. Kinda funny how your asinine attempts at sidetracking come back to bite ya in the ass, huh?

And what counterpoint would that have been?

Is too time infinity What are you, thirteen years old?

I responded to an assertion without evidence with another assertion without evidence. You set the low standard, I was just following in your lead. But yes, you are right, that standard is fairly immature. Try harder next time.

Come on snowman, you can do better than this. We are all aware of your very low level of intelligence, but this was a very poor showing even for someone of your limited skills. Oh, and really, if you are going to insult my grammar, than it would be best if you made sure your own posts were free of mistakes. Although I guess I can understand that you are having trouble finding other flaws in my posts and so must revert to such silly insults. When insulting you, however, there is no need to draw upon silly insults, there are plenty of true ones that come easily to the tongue.

 

[Paulie]

Ok ladies, let's change panties and start over, huh?

Don't let political beliefs make you resort to this shit...this is why we have so many damn problems in this country. Hating each other for differing political beliefs is really no different than hating each other for skin color.

I will say however, if i may interject, that one huge fundamental difference between Bush and JFK is that Bush loves war and secrecy, and JFK did not.

Those are huge differences in policy.

 

[Ruby]

Ok ladies, let's change panties and start over, huh?

Don't let political beliefs make you resort to this shit...this is why we have so many damn problems in this country. Hating each other for differing political beliefs is really no different than hating each other for skin color.

I will say however, if i may interject, that one huge fundamental difference between Bush and JFK is that Bush loves war and secrecy, and JFK did not.

Those are huge differences in policy.

I have to say that this thread at least made me laugh out loud....its the first time I have heard people try to blame neoconservatism on LIBERALS! It is pretty funny to see an ideology be pawned off on those who opposed it when its revealed how vile it is, just like many liberals have been saying for years.

Well it very good evidence that its an utterly failed "ism" since those who have supported it are now trying to pretend that its a "liberal" thing to distance themselves from it!

I would add that our foreign policy took a deep turn for the worst after ww2 and we certainly had some troubling problems previous to that as well (our stealing hawaii for instance). We have just continued to get a little worse each and every year and with each and every administration.

 

[Ninja]

Actually I've already proven my logic skills, son.

Or lack thereof...

By the way, you don't need the opening retard quotes...with you posting its assumed. And as for the closing quotes...well those are a lie with you.

Would you like to write that in English?

And just to enlighten you a bit, pointing out the conflict of interest is not, by itself, an ad hominem.

Oh, ok, thanks Plato

Where it becomes an ad hominem is when you stupidly assumed he was lying/incorrect because of the conflict of interest.

I didn't claim that he was lying you dumb motherfucker. I claimed that he has a vested interest in portraying Neoconservatism as Paleoconservatism with an intervestionist foreign policy... Since apparently you can't read.

Actually thats not an ad hominem, moron.

It is a textbook example of an ad hominem, moron. Your point (or again, lack thereof) was based on the perception that Irving Kristol is the father of the modern Neoconservative movement, and not on content of his op-ed. Ad hominem, whether you like it or not. The fact that you're too dense to understand why isn't my problem.

I responded to an assertion without evidence with another assertion without evidence.

I generally assume that most people are intelligent enough to know that I don't claim to read Irving Kristol's mind; that is, unless I present actual evidence it should be implicit that I'm giving a personal opinion. You knew that, there's no way you're that stupid, but you're continuing your stall and prevaricate tactics.

You set the low standard, I was just following in your lead. But yes, you are right, that standard is fairly immature. Try harder next time.

Now, now Larqueer, don't sell yourself short. When it comes to pettiness, asinine comments, stalling, prevaricating, immaturity, and lame insults, you get the gold star. Good job!

Come on snowman, you can do better than this.

I most certainly can. I rise to the level of the competition. Obviously I won't be doing my best work with a mongoloid like you.

When insulting you, however, there is no need to draw upon silly insults, there are plenty of true ones that come easily to the tongue.

Apparently not. Shall I go back and list your "petty insults"? FTR I've no problem with "petty insults" but if you use them don't claim to be above the fray. That really makes you look like a cumfarting moron, Larqueer

 

[Larkinn]

Or lack thereof...

I'm sorry, didn't you agree with me that it was an ad hominem attack? Yes? Does that demonstrate a lack of logic skills? No, it does not.

Would you like to write that in English?

Think about it, genius.

I didn't claim that he was lying you dumb motherfucker. I claimed that he has a vested interest in portraying Neoconservatism as Paleoconservatism with an intervestionist foreign policy... Since apparently you can't read.

Ah so your point was he has a vested interest in the outcome...but despite that his article is completely true. So your point in saying he had a vested interest was...what exactly?

It is a textbook example of an ad hominem, moron. Your point (or again, lack thereof) was based on the perception that Irving Kristol is the father of the modern Neoconservative movement, and not on content of his op-ed. Ad hominem, whether you like it or not. The fact that you're too dense to understand why isn't my problem.

Learn to read, dipshit. Obviously I quoted your statement for a reason.

I generally assume that most people are intelligent enough to know that I don't claim to read Irving Kristol's mind; that is, unless I present actual evidence it should be implicit that I'm giving a personal opinion. You knew that, there's no way you're that stupid, but you're continuing your stall and prevaricate tactics.

Jesus Christ...LOOK AT WHAT I AM QUOTING. I was referring to your comment about JFK...obviously. Are you really this stupid?

Now, now Larqueer, don't sell yourself short. When it comes to pettiness, asinine comments, stalling, prevaricating, immaturity, and lame insults, you get the gold star. Good job!

Congratulations...by writing a sentence you proved the sentence just written was incorrect. A fairly impressive feat.

I most certainly can. I rise to the level of the competition. Obviously I won't be doing my best work with a mongoloid like you.

mmm Racism, its whats for dinner.

Apparently not. Shall I go back and list your "petty insults"? FTR I've no problem with "petty insults" but if you use them don't claim to be above the fray. That really makes you look like a cumfarting moron, Larqueer

How about you first quote where I said "petty insults". Oh wait I didn't. When you quote me incorrectly, you look like the moron not me.

So congratulations on responding incorrectly to the majority of things quoted. That takes real skill. Try taking a class in reading comprehension before you post again. The way you are arguing now it makes me feel sorry for you, almost like I am beating a retarded chimpanzee or something. Really...next time try interpreting me correctly a few times...it makes it harder when you actually don't look like a complete dumbshit every other sentence.