Condeleeza Rice to take Powell's place!!

[ScreamingEagle]

I find it amusing that the left is tongue-tied about how a (1)BLACK (2)WOMAN (3) REPUBLICAN made it all the way to the esteemed and key top post of Secretary of State.

Can you imagine how they would be bragging it up about how they are all for "equal opportunity" if THEY had put Condoleeza in that office? Kinda takes the wind out of Billary Rotten's sails too, doesn't it?

:teeth:

PS: prep for 2008?

 

[CivilLiberty]

what is the fundemental difference between the two?

Do you realize the pun in your sentence?



A

 

[Zhukov]

Do you realize the pun in your sentence?

I'd say religiosity is a much more traditional conservative value than the hawkish foreign policy that typically characterizes a neo-conservative.

Do you realize the error in your statement?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'd say religiosity is a much more traditional conservative value than the hawkish foreign policy that typically characterizes a neo-conservative.

Do you realize the error in your statement?

Good reply Zhukov, but such a waste of time and type.

Why is it that so many "discussions" with liberals consistently break down into issues about about language/use of language/defiinitions/etc.?

You got a real winner here with Mr. Editor.

:gross2:

 

[CivilLiberty]

The fundamental difference is CL wants to claim he is conservative and yet preach the liberal doctrine. He is like many liberals who confused freedom with anarchy.

Oh really? And what "liberal doctrine" am I supposed to be preaching? I've preached no liberal doctrine here, so stop making false accusations.


A

 

[theim]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but thinks it's a cat, it's still a duck.

 

[krisy]

I saw Colin Powell on the news saying that he always told the Pres that he only wanted to serve one term. It's no surprise that some of the media wants to make an issue.

I also have to say Condi Rice is awesome. She should be looked up to by all women for her guts and intelligence. Her education,her hard work,I believe she will do well,but be harshly critisized by the LMM. They only like balck women in office when they are Democrats.

 

[Bonnie]

I saw Colin Powell on the news saying that he always told the Pres that he only wanted to serve one term. It's no surprise that some of the media wants to make an issue.

I also have to say Condi Rice is awesome. She should be looked up to by all women for her guts and intelligence. Her education,her hard work,I believe she will do well,but be harshly critisized by the LMM. They only like balck women in office when they are Democrats.

Yes Condi is a briliant woman, unfortunately to her Black co-horts she is the wrong kind of Black woman in other words conservative............I think they would prefer the likes of Anita Hill the Liberal martyr poster girl that almost kept a good man off the Supreme Court bench.

 

[theim]

What are you guys talking about? Liberals love African-Americans!

Just so long as they don't get uppity and think about getting any real power, of course.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I'd say religiosity is a much more traditional conservative value than the hawkish foreign policy that typically characterizes a neo-conservative.

Do you realize the error in your statement?

You're reading an enormous assumption into my statement.


Hawkish foreign policy is as much if not more attributable to Democrats - Roosevelt's foreign policy was certainly not isolationist, as he brought us into WWII, and JFK began Vietnam, and that creep LBJ expanded Vietnam far beyond anything Bush has (yet) done with Iraq. Those were Dems.

Of course, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all had very strong foreign policies that one might call "hawkish". Though it's all a matter of degree.

Christian ethics were very much a part of the Democratic party, but a part of the Republican party as well - this is no surprise as 85% of American are Christian! The ethics of Christianity are naturally going to flow through our society and political structure.

But the rise in fundamentalism is separate - while 85% of Americans are Christian, only 20-25% are fundamentalist Christians. Today, fundamentalists have found their home in the Republican party. This movement of fundamentalists can be traced to the '68 election - Wallace was showing as a strong third party candidate, due in part to the power vacuum left by LBJ and the social unrest that resulted from the back lash of Vietnam and the civil rights movements (both badly mangled by LBJ, who might as well have been a Soviet mole). Nixon co-opted some of Wallace's party platform, in particular the strong "law and order" angle along with the promise to appoint southern constructionists to the Supreme Court.

Wallace was hard right and a fundamentalist - and he took a sizable portion of the vote in '68 - including four states totaling 46 electoral votes. He was the first to run on "moral" issues like homosexuality and school prayer.

Here, then, is the birth of the modern "neocon", with the Republican party shifting from traditional conservatism to cater to this demographic segment.

This is quite different, I believe, from the Christianity we saw in previous administrations - consider for example Eisenhower - while it was during his administration that "in god we trust" was added to currency, and "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance, this reflected a religiosity that's a far cry from the overt fundamentalism we see reflected in many neocons today.

In short, I'd say that neocon/fundamentalists can be cited more for hawkish domestic policy of their views. (this is not to say that dems are not hawkish in their own special way.)



Regards


Andy

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're reading an enormous assumption into my statement.


Hawkish foreign policy is as much if not more attributable to Democrats - Roosevelt's foreign policy was certainly not isolationist, as he brought us into WWII, and JFK began Vietnam, and that creep LBJ expanded Vietnam far beyond anything Bush has (yet) done with Iraq. Those were Dems.

Of course, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all had very strong foreign policies that one might call "hawkish". Though it's all a matter of degree.

Christian ethics were very much a part of the Democratic party, but a part of the Republican party as well - this is no surprise as 85% of American are Christian! The ethics of Christianity are naturally going to flow through our society and political structure.

But the rise in fundamentalism is separate - while 85% of Americans are Christian, only 20-25% are fundamentalist Christians. Today, fundamentalists have found their home in the Republican party. This movement of fundamentalists can be traced to the '68 election - Wallace was showing as a strong third party candidate, due in part to the power vacuum left by LBJ and the social unrest that resulted from the back lash of Vietnam and the civil rights movements (both badly mangled by LBJ, who might as well have been a Soviet mole). Nixon co-opted some of Wallace's party platform, in particular the strong "law and order" angle along with the promise to appoint southern constructionists to the Supreme Court.

Wallace was hard right and a fundamentalist - and he took a sizable portion of the vote in '68 - including four states totaling 46 electoral votes. He was the first to run on "moral" issues like homosexuality and school prayer.

Here, then, is the birth of the modern "neocon".

This is quite different, I believe, from the Christianity we saw in previous administrations - consider for example Eisenhower - while it was during his administration that "in god we trust" was added to currency, and "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance, this reflected a religiosity that's a far cry from the overt fundamentalism we see reflected in many neocons today.

In short, I'd say that neocon/fundamentalists can be cited more for hawkish domestic policy of their views. (this is not to say that dems are not hawkish in their own special way.)



Regards


Andy

Here's why you're wrong. "Fundamentalists" are only becoming a "new group" as society slides toward anti christianism and secular humanism. They just seem radical in a world where moral erosion is the status quo.

And it is NOT Bush's goal to institute a theocracy. That's nonsense.

Your party has become a party defined by it's addiction to the logical insanities of socialism and the true apparatchik power lust of overzeaoulous bureaucratization.

It's also the become the party of weak and clueless defense policy, regardless of what Kennedy did.

 

[dilloduck]

You're reading an enormous assumption into my statement.


Hawkish foreign policy is as much if not more attributable to Democrats - Roosevelt's foreign policy was certainly not isolationist, as he brought us into WWII, and JFK began Vietnam, and that creep LBJ expanded Vietnam far beyond anything Bush has (yet) done with Iraq. Those were Dems.

Of course, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all had very strong foreign policies that one might call "hawkish". Though it's all a matter of degree.

Christian ethics were very much a part of the Democratic party, but a part of the Republican party as well - this is no surprise as 85% of American are Christian! The ethics of Christianity are naturally going to flow through our society and political structure.

But the rise in fundamentalism is separate - while 85% of Americans are Christian, only 20-25% are fundamentalist Christians. Today, fundamentalists have found their home in the Republican party. This movement of fundamentalists can be traced to the '68 election - Wallace was showing as a strong third party candidate, due in part to the power vacuum left by LBJ and the social unrest that resulted from the back lash of Vietnam and the civil rights movements (both badly mangled by LBJ, who might as well have been a Soviet mole). Nixon co-opted some of Wallace's party platform, in particular the strong "law and order" angle along with the promise to appoint southern constructionists to the Supreme Court.

Wallace was hard right and a fundamentalist - and he took a sizable portion of the vote in '68 - including four states totaling 46 electoral votes. He was the first to run on "moral" issues like homosexuality and school prayer.

Here, then, is the birth of the modern "neocon", with the Republican party shifting from traditional conservatism to cater to this demographic segment.

This is quite different, I believe, from the Christianity we saw in previous administrations - consider for example Eisenhower - while it was during his administration that "in god we trust" was added to currency, and "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance, this reflected a religiosity that's a far cry from the overt fundamentalism we see reflected in many neocons today.

In short, I'd say that neocon/fundamentalists can be cited more for hawkish domestic policy of their views. (this is not to say that dems are not hawkish in their own special way.)



Regards


Andy

By all means-----cite away--love to hear youur examples of neocons hawkish domestic policy!

 

[CSM]

You're reading an enormous assumption into my statement.


Hawkish foreign policy is as much if not more attributable to Democrats - Roosevelt's foreign policy was certainly not isolationist, as he brought us into WWII, and JFK began Vietnam, and that creep LBJ expanded Vietnam far beyond anything Bush has (yet) done with Iraq. Those were Dems.

Of course, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all had very strong foreign policies that one might call "hawkish". Though it's all a matter of degree.

Christian ethics were very much a part of the Democratic party, but a part of the Republican party as well - this is no surprise as 85% of American are Christian! The ethics of Christianity are naturally going to flow through our society and political structure.

But the rise in fundamentalism is separate - while 85% of Americans are Christian, only 20-25% are fundamentalist Christians. Today, fundamentalists have found their home in the Republican party. This movement of fundamentalists can be traced to the '68 election - Wallace was showing as a strong third party candidate, due in part to the power vacuum left by LBJ and the social unrest that resulted from the back lash of Vietnam and the civil rights movements (both badly mangled by LBJ, who might as well have been a Soviet mole). Nixon co-opted some of Wallace's party platform, in particular the strong "law and order" angle along with the promise to appoint southern constructionists to the Supreme Court.

Wallace was hard right and a fundamentalist - and he took a sizable portion of the vote in '68 - including four states totaling 46 electoral votes. He was the first to run on "moral" issues like homosexuality and school prayer.

Here, then, is the birth of the modern "neocon", with the Republican party shifting from traditional conservatism to cater to this demographic segment.

This is quite different, I believe, from the Christianity we saw in previous administrations - consider for example Eisenhower - while it was during his administration that "in god we trust" was added to currency, and "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance, this reflected a religiosity that's a far cry from the overt fundamentalism we see reflected in many neocons today.

In short, I'd say that neocon/fundamentalists can be cited more for hawkish domestic policy of their views. (this is not to say that dems are not hawkish in their own special way.)



Regards


Andy

Not entirely true. "In God We Trust" was added to US coinage during the Civil War. It is true that the phrase became the motto of the United States in 1957 and was added to paper currency then. Just wanted to make it clear that there was a precedent before Ike came along.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

 

[CivilLiberty]

By all means-----cite away--love to hear youur examples of neocons hawkish domestic policy!

Here's a nice piece by Ron Paul discussing neocons at home and abroad.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

A

 

[CivilLiberty]

Your party has become a party defined by it's addiction to the logical insanities of socialism and the true apparatchik power lust of overzeaoulous bureaucratization.

My party? I'm Libertarian/Independent. Stop telling me what party I belong to.


A

 

[CSM]

I should also point out that Wallace was primarily a Democrat though he did run as a candidate for the American Independent Party in 1968, winning about 12% of the vote. His style of conservatism had more to do with segregation than anything else. All in all, Wallace ran for president 4 times; three times as a Democrat and once as a third party candidate.

 

[manu1959]

My party? I'm Libertarian/Independent. Stop telling me what party I belong to.


A

why ? you come here and stereotype all of us as right wing, pro life, zero government, death from above neo cons

is it so beyond the non-bush crowd to understand that a majority of the people prefered bush and did not want to change the direction of the country at the moment....

 

[CSM]

My party? I'm Libertarian/Independent. Stop telling me what party I belong to.


A

The article he provides a link to is indeed written by a Libertarian. Ron Paul is a Congressman from Texas I believe and is very much a Constitutionalist.

 

[Bonnie]

You're reading an enormous assumption into my statement.


Hawkish foreign policy is as much if not more attributable to Democrats - Roosevelt's foreign policy was certainly not isolationist, as he brought us into WWII, and JFK began Vietnam, and that creep LBJ expanded Vietnam far beyond anything Bush has (yet) done with Iraq. Those were Dems.

Of course, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all had very strong foreign policies that one might call "hawkish". Though it's all a matter of degree.

Christian ethics were very much a part of the Democratic party, but a part of the Republican party as well - this is no surprise as 85% of American are Christian! The ethics of Christianity are naturally going to flow through our society and political structure.

But the rise in fundamentalism is separate - while 85% of Americans are Christian, only 20-25% are fundamentalist Christians. Today, fundamentalists have found their home in the Republican party. This movement of fundamentalists can be traced to the '68 election - Wallace was showing as a strong third party candidate, due in part to the power vacuum left by LBJ and the social unrest that resulted from the back lash of Vietnam and the civil rights movements (both badly mangled by LBJ, who might as well have been a Soviet mole). Nixon co-opted some of Wallace's party platform, in particular the strong "law and order" angle along with the promise to appoint southern constructionists to the Supreme Court.

Wallace was hard right and a fundamentalist - and he took a sizable portion of the vote in '68 - including four states totaling 46 electoral votes. He was the first to run on "moral" issues like homosexuality and school prayer.

Here, then, is the birth of the modern "neocon", with the Republican party shifting from traditional conservatism to cater to this demographic segment.

This is quite different, I believe, from the Christianity we saw in previous administrations - consider for example Eisenhower - while it was during his administration that "in god we trust" was added to currency, and "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance, this reflected a religiosity that's a far cry from the overt fundamentalism we see reflected in many neocons today.

In short, I'd say that neocon/fundamentalists can be cited more for hawkish domestic policy of their views. (this is not to say that dems are not hawkish in their own special way.)



Regards


Andy

True neocons like Irving Kristol were defined as liberals who became disenchanted with the far left way in which the Democratic party was headed included in that was in the area of foreign policy. Jeane Kirpatrick was an example of this. Additionally they were born form frustration at the way the Democrats were handling crime, fear that the Soviet Union was fast gaining ground in the Cold War effort.
The earliest Neocons were actually of marxist ideoleogy of which Kristol himself was such. So essentially it has become a generic term used to describe anyone who is hawkish in an attempt to denograte them. There is also a stygma I think that Neocons are obsessively tied to Israel which is far from the truth. It is true many newer neocons have switched to the Republican party I suspect for the same reasons. Neocons can be linked to the Likud party and also the Tories, and theLabour party in Britain. the think tanks that spawn neoconservative policy pale in comparison to insitutions like the Brookings institute, cato, and the Heritage Institute, and still they are outnumbered by the Liberal neocons institutions like the
Rockefeller and Ford think tanks.

And yes LBJ was the biggest liberal, and was the one who micromanaged the Vietnam War so badly that we lost 50,000 men.......Amazing how that fact gets overlooked.
I dissagree with your assessment that fundamentalism and Christianity are so different. Fundamentalism is a word that gets tossed around much like Neocon in an attempt to pigeionhole any religious person into thinking they are losing touch with the mainstream, and should somehow re-thing their beleifs lest be left behind by modern enlightened society.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Not entirely true. "In God We Trust" was added to US coinage during the Civil War. It is true that the phrase became the motto of the United States in 1957 and was added to paper currency then. Just wanted to make it clear that there was a precedent before Ike came along.

I'm well aware of that - I didn't say coinage, I said currency.

As far as coinage, it was added to certain coins, pushed by the secretary of the treasury at the time, with all coins (I believe) having the motto by 1938. July 30, 1956 saw the law making "In god we trust" the official motto of the US, and prescribing that all currency have that motto inscribed upon it. - this (and the addition of "under god) to the pledge) is a bit more significant as an indicator of federal establishment of non-secular concepts, which was my point.


Regards

Andy