The Conservative Schism

[5stringJeff]

You're in denial. Bush will not get the police state powers he's seeking.

Palpatine has gone far enough.

http://tk2215.com/attakus/Emperor_palpatine.jpg

That would be a GOP schism, not a conservative schism.

 

[musicman]

That would be a GOP schism, not a conservative schism.

An important distinction - absolutely central to this discussion.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Interesting, dmp. Would this have - primarily - to do with the Wizard's observations on society, as he is handing out the watch, medal, and diploma? Rather searing indictments of man's pomposity - and general inaccuracy - in his perceptions of things like compassion, courage, and intelligence, as I recall.

Most all of the characters in the Wizard of Oz were frequently used in political cartoons 100 years ago. IIRC, the story is a populist allegory about the superiority of the silver standard for working people over the gold standard. The lion has no courage, the tin man has no heart, the straw man has no brain, and they are following the yellow brick road. ie, if you support a gold standard instead of silver, you are a heartless, brainless coward. Or something like that.

 

[Abbey Normal]

...
I'm sure there is common ground that RWA and I agree on, but the histrionics and everyone-but-the-Christian-white-man is to blame rants are tiring on the ears. The xenophobia that is so lightly masked is a disgusting trait, in my eyes.
...

One thing: While certain world leaders meet in Cuba with the agenda of rattling sabers and expressing their hatred of America, I have a hard time seeing us as the xenophobics.

 

[William Joyce]

RWA and MM are right, as usual.

There's a damn good reason why true conservatives are running around telling people "I'm a Reagan conservative."

It means, "Eff Bush."

Neocons are running the show now, but they are sliding. Nobody likes the war in Iraq. Nobody likes the open borders. Nobody likes the NWO. Sadly, the winners in all this will be Democrats, because the GOP does not have its shit together. From where I sit, George Allen is desperately trying to posture as a fucking feminist to win. Say what? What. People, let's wake up.

 

[Gunny]

RWA and MM are right, as usual.

There's a damn good reason why true conservatives are running around telling people "I'm a Reagan conservative."

It means, "Eff Bush."

Neocons are running the show now, but they are sliding. Nobody likes the war in Iraq. Nobody likes the open borders. Nobody likes the NWO. Sadly, the winners in all this will be Democrats, because the GOP does not have its shit together. From where I sit, George Allen is desperately trying to posture as a fucking feminist to win. Say what? What. People, let's wake up.

It is neither the first nor the last time political parties, jockeying for position in the polls, have shifted on the political spectrum.

I disagree with the assumption that "neocons" support globalism anymore than anyone else since that is a liberal ideal espoused by the left. Only the wealthy elite on the right desire globalism becuase it keeps their bank accounts full. That is personal greed, not political philosophy.

What you call "neocons," IMO, are those moderates and hawk liberals that wre abandoned by their party during the debacle known as the Carter Administration.

You sure don't mind our votes that have kept your boys in power since 1968 but for three terms of office. You don't mind the votes that swept the Dems out of power in Congress.

But you DO mind our moderate viewpoints that aren't anymore far right than they were far left when the Dems expected us to following Carter blindly into tree-hugging, turn a blind eye to reality extreme leftwingnut Hell.

You take a lot for granted with two years left to the next Presidential election. It was the moderates -- those you label "neocons" -- who put Clinton in office due to dissatisfaction with President Bush. That isn't a threat -- it's meant as a wakeup call.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I disagree with the assumption that "neocons" support globalism

It's not an assumption, it's an obvious fact. Neocons are notorious for globalism, saying otherwise is in glaring opposition to verifiable fact.

 

[Gunny]

It's not an assumption, it's an obvious fact. Neocons are notorious for globalism, saying otherwise is in glaring opposition to verifiable fact.

Y'think? Since "neocons" include what used to be Southern Democrats and/or "hawks," and we are notoriously nationalistic. I would have to say I disagree with your assessment.

Not that the globalists don't exist. I just don't see them in the numbers you do. This goes back to globalism being about parity/mediocrity/socialism which is hardly the trait of conservatives and/or moderates, but one of left-wing extremists.

 

[Annie]

It is neither the first nor the last time political parties, jockeying for position in the polls, have shifted on the political spectrum.

I disagree with the assumption that "neocons" support globalism anymore than anyone else since that is a liberal ideal espoused by the left. Only the wealthy elite on the right desire globalism becuase it keeps their bank accounts full. That is personal greed, not political philosophy.

What you call "neocons," IMO, are those moderates and hawk liberals that wre abandoned by their party during the debacle known as the Carter Administration.

You sure don't mind our votes that have kept your boys in power since 1968 but for three terms of office. You don't mind the votes that swept the Dems out of power in Congress.

But you DO mind our moderate viewpoints that aren't anymore far right than they were far left when the Dems expected us to following Carter blindly into tree-hugging, turn a blind eye to reality extreme leftwingnut Hell.

You take a lot for granted with two years left to the next Presidential election. It was the moderates -- those you label "neocons" -- who put Clinton in office due to dissatisfaction with President Bush. That isn't a threat -- it's meant as a wakeup call.

Gunny, I think the term 'globalism' is being misconstrued to mean anything other than pulling all of our troops back to use and deploying them on our borders. Sort of the Pat Buchanan idea of 'protection.'

That didn't work prior to WWII and would be even more of a mistake today.

Over time, I've come to the conclusion that Iraq was not prosectuted as well as it should have been, my guess it would have been better if the SOS and DOD had both been less wedded to their agendas. The infighting, which we have seen some of the fallout this week from Powell, seemed to have made it a 'winner take all', until things started heading south, which they inevitably do from time to time in war. Then there were piecemeal punishments and rewards given, for political reasons. Again, not new in war.

We cannot disengage from the rest of the world, our economy would not allow it, even if other countries would leave us alone, which they wouldn't.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Y'think? Since "neocons" include what used to be Southern Democrats and/or "hawks," and we are notoriously nationalistic. I would have to say I disagree with your assessment.

well, when bush calls the minutement vigilantes, and refuses to close the border, he's a sucky nationalist.

is this nationalism? http://www.spp.gov

Not that the globalists don't exist. I just don't see them in the numbers you do. This goes back to globalism being about parity/mediocrity/socialism which is hardly the trait of conservatives and/or moderates, but one of left-wing extremists.

But globalism also has to do with submission to the global financial apparatus, agreeing to protect the assets of foreign investors, and using the global currency. While capitalism is the best economic system, that does not automatically make it unconditionally moral. We also choose what moral guidelines we place upon the operation of capitalism, just like any else in life.

It is a CHOICE to legitimize chinese slave labor by being it's number one customer.

 

[Avatar4321]

That would be a GOP schism, not a conservative schism.

How is it a GOP schism when its the same exact liberal Republicans siding with the Democrats? To schism one would have to assume that they were conservative, or even agreeing with us to begin with.

 

[Gunny]

well, when bush calls the minutement vigilantes, and refuses to close the border, he's a sucky nationalist.

He's also a politician worried about votes for his party. Political reality: neither side wants to alienate the Hispanic vote.

Or you could say he's supporting his wealthy cronies by keeping their cheap labor readily available. I beleive I already mentioned personal greed as an fact overriding political idealism. However, personal greed is not necessarily posessing a political belief in globalism; rather, merely a selfish belief in personal wealth.

is this nationalism? http://www.spp.gov

But globalism also has to do with submission to the global financial apparatus, agreeing to protect the assets of foreign investors, and using the global currency. While capitalism is the best economic system, that does not automatically make it unconditionally moral. We also choose what moral guidelines we place upon the operation of capitalism, just like any else in life.

It is a CHOICE to legitimize chinese slave labor by being it's number one customer.

As mentioned above, I do not necessarily equate a political philosophy of global parity with a personal philosophy of not caring what it takes ro who it affects to increase one's personal wealth.

I WILL hiwever give you that the end result is the same.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny, I think the term 'globalism' is being misconstrued to mean anything other than pulling all of our troops back to use and deploying them on our borders. Sort of the Pat Buchanan idea of 'protection.'

That didn't work prior to WWII and would be even more of a mistake today.

The accusation of "globalism" is a misnomer and deflection to draw attention away from isolationism. And I agree that isolationism has not worked in the past, and becomes less and less realistic as the world gets smaller.

One part of me however, is MORE THAN WILLING to abandon and ungrateful world to its own devices and concentrate on taking care of our own first. We DO have social issues that need addressing and we DO have a border that only exists on paper.

Over time, I've come to the conclusion that Iraq was not prosectuted as well as it should have been, my guess it would have been better if the SOS and DOD had both been less wedded to their agendas. The infighting, which we have seen some of the fallout this week from Powell, seemed to have made it a 'winner take all', until things started heading south, which they inevitably do from time to time in war. Then there were piecemeal punishments and rewards given, for political reasons. Again, not new in war.

You have never ONCE$ heard me agree with and/or defend the conduct of our involvement in Iraq. There are quite a few things I would have done differently that would have radically changed the face of the issue.

And it is NOT Monday morning quarterbacking either. My strategy is based on information the US military at least knew as far back as 91.

We cannot disengage from the rest of the world, our economy would not allow it, even if other countries would leave us alone, which they wouldn't.

Our disengagement would have to include self-sufficiency; which, clearly we are not selfsufficient as we once were. It's amazing what we can't do without if we know it exists; although, our ancestors managed to do it quite nicely for a couple of centuries.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

As mentioned above, I do not necessarily equate a political philosophy of global parity with a personal philosophy of not caring what it takes ro who it affects to increase one's personal wealth.

I WILL hiwever give you that the end result is the same.

Yes. WHether it's government controlling business or business controlling government, the effect is the same, a hegemonic power structure which both sets and profits from government policy, whether it's best for the people or not.

 

[sitarro]

Not only would I concede, I would offer it up!

Oh shit, it must be snowing in Houston, I have agreed with 2 of your posts Clay.....You might want to rethink your position.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

As mentioned above, I do not necessarily equate a political philosophy of global parity with a personal philosophy of not caring what it takes ro who it affects to increase one's personal wealth.

I WILL hiwever give you that the end result is the same.

The political philosophy that goes with this profit mindset is UNRESTRAINED trade, which is positioned as a unconditional force for good in the neocon discourse.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

One thing: While certain world leaders meet in Cuba with the agenda of rattling sabers and expressing their hatred of America, I have a hard time seeing us as the xenophobics.

Perhaps you misunderstood my post...

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Oh shit, it must be snowing in Houston, I have agreed with 2 of your posts Clay.....You might want to rethink your position.

Indeed.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The political philosophy that goes with this profit mindset is UNRESTRAINED trade, which is positioned as a unconditional force for good in the neocon discourse.

I see nothing wrong with unrestrained trade in principle because, as a conservative, I believe in free enterprise. However, I also believe in the policy of "America first" in terms of foreign policy and foreign trade in order to protect and defend our country. Thus a balance needs to be struck.

What forms of unrestrained trade do you see as being a threat to our country? And what forms of restrained trade are you advocating?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Perhaps you misunderstood my post...

That's always a possibility. Were you not saying that Americans are xenophobic?