Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Definately a good read. Its very apparent how the neo-cons and liberals share the same goals.
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?
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"?
Definately a good read. Its very apparent how the neo-cons and liberals share the same goals.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Psssst...me and Paulitics are different people and don't always agree.
Yay for ad hominems.
Bush is nothing like JFK, nor is he similar to liberalism.
There is a reason liberals hate him so much.
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.
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.
Aww, wook at Warkinn defending poor widdle Iwving Kwistol fwom da mean ad hominem attacks
Go blow it out your ass, dickwad.
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.
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.
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 said:No, he is not.
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?
Is too time infinity What are you, thirteen years old?
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.
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.
Actually thats not an ad hominem, moron.
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.
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.
Or lack thereof...
Would you like to write that in English?
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.
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 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.
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!
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.
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