The Straussian Neo-Conservative - I Suggest You Read This

[Larkinn]

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.

Its not politics. Snowman seems to hate me for some reason, and I am glad to sling it back. It can be relaxing really. The political differences he has pretty much given up on, he is only resorting to insults now.

 

[Mr.Conley]

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

Oh God, so bad it's good. You just made my day sir.

 

[William Joyce]

Gentlemen and gentle ladies:

"Straussians" are JEWS. J-E-W-S Jews with a capital "J" and that stands for JEWS.

That's the alpha and the omega of this story. "Neoconservatives" are Jews who were liberals when that was convenient for Jewish purposes and turned to militarism when it became apparent that the Democrats would not wage war in the Middle East for Israel.

Just so nobody gets confused.

 

[Ninja]

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.

From your previous post:

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.​

As you stated above, pointing out a conflict of interest doesn't necessarily constitute an ad hominem attack - so we agree. No where did I claim Mr. Kristol was "lying." I rescind my admission of making an ad hominem and appreciate that you have come around and now understand that I made a valid point.

You, on the other hand, attempted to bolster the validity of his op-ed by pointing out his status as a prominent Neoconservative, without citing anything from the article itself. Your detachment from reality and deliberate ignorance aside, this is an ad hominem argument. A logical fallacy. From your keyboard. Yes, it most certainly demonstrates a lack of "logic skills."

Think about it, genius.

It's not my fault that your ESL teacher failed to impart clear writing and good syntax onto you. Write a sentence that makes you sound like an illegal immigrant, and I'll call you on it.

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?

To say any op-ed is "completely true" is laughable, regardless of the political leanings of the author. What a fucking joke you are. Completely true? I'm embarrassed for you. Seriously.

A libtard arguing that an op-ed written by a very prominent Neoconservative is "completely true" - WOW. This is like simultaneously watching the lunar landing and a clown taking a shit while rollerblading - you get to watch an historic event and someting utterly absurd all at once.

Now, I'm fully expecting that you're going to respond with something to the effect of "well, just because all other op-eds contain half-truths, distortions and outright lies, it's still not logical to assume that means this one does as well." Prove me right, bitch!

Again: If Irving Kristol can create new Paleoconservative Weekly Standard readers, his son will make more money. I call this a "vested interest." Hence, it was expedient for Mr. Kristol to sugarcoat (and again, I didn't say "lying," since we know you like to read words that aren't there) Neoconservatism to make it sound more similar to Paleoconservatism and less similar to Liberalism.

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

Unfortunately that doesn't address your use of the ad hominem argument.

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

I hope you aren't in academia - your peer reviews would be atrocious if you tried doing studies with a sample size of one.

Let's clarify this: I've never claimed to be above the fray. I'm a dick, I make personal attacks, I like hurting feelings, and I thrive on the unhappiness of others. I luxuriate in my immaturity. You, on the other hand, make personal attacks, spout a few holier-than-thou platitudes as if that somehow absolves you of your "silly insults," and then revert to victim mode and whine about being hated. LOL

But that's all irrelevent. What matters is that one sentence on my part neither proves nor disproves whether or not you deserve the lame insult award.

BTW were those your "logic skills" at work?

mmm Racism, its whats for dinner.

That quip was beyond gay. Take your politically correct piety and your fake outrage and go fuck yourself. People with an extra Chromosome 21 are now a race?

That you've played the race card is telling - that's the typical libtard diversion tactic to be used when an intellectually superior foe is waxing one's ass.

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.

Okay. Silly insults. You sure got 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.

My responses have been spot-on. Every time I have responded to you on this board, my responses have been spot-on. I find decimating your arguments (I used the word in its loosest possible definition) to be orgasmic. I have done this with a 100% success rate whether the subject is compulsory gun ownership in Switzerland, what acquittal means in our criminal justice system, or the idiocy of treating an op-ed published by Rupert Murdock in a Neocon rag as indisputable historical fact.

The way you are arguing now it makes me feel sorry for you, almost like I am beating a retarded chimpanzee or something.

"mmm Racism, its whats for dinner."

Really...next time try interpreting me correctly a few times

Write as though English is your first language and it shouldn't be a problem for us to interpret you correctly.

 

[Ninja]

Gentlemen and gentle ladies:

"Straussians" are JEWS. J-E-W-S Jews with a capital "J" and that stands for JEWS.

That's the alpha and the omega of this story. "Neoconservatives" are Jews who were liberals when that was convenient for Jewish purposes and turned to militarism when it became apparent that the Democrats would not wage war in the Middle East for Israel.

Just so nobody gets confused.

Either you forgot to take your colloidal silver, or you ran out of tinfoil.

Or both.

 

[William Joyce]

Either you forgot to take your colloidal silver, or you ran out of tinfoil.

Or both.

That's not an argument. This is:

http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/030918_neoconservatism.htm

Hopefully, some of the venom has been taken out of this argument by the remarkable recent article by neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol (“The Neoconservative Persuasion,” Weekly Standard, August 25, 2003). With commendable frankness, Kristol admitted that

“the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”

And, equally frankly, Kristol eschewed any attempt to justify U.S. support for Israel in terms of American national interest:

“[L]arge nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns… That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.”

If the US is an “ideological” nation, this can only mean that the motivations of neoconservative ideology are a legitimate subject of intellectual inquiry.

For example, it is certainly true that the neocons’ foreign policy fits well with a plausible version of Jewish interests, but is arguably only tenuously related to the interests of the U.S. Also, neocons oppose the isolationism of important sections of traditional American conservatism. And neocon attitudes on issues like race and immigration differ profoundly from those of traditional mainstream conservatives — but resemble closely the common attitudes of the wider American Jewish community.

Count me among those who accept that the Jewish commitment of leading neoconservatives has become a critical influence on U.S. policies, and that the effectiveness of the neoconservatives is greatly enhanced by their alliance with the organized Jewish community. In my opinion, this conclusion is based on solid data and reasonable inferences. But like any other theory, of course, it is subject to reasoned discussion and disproof.

We shouldn’t be surprised by the importance of ethnicity in human affairs. Nor should we be intimidated by charges of anti-Semitism. We should be able to discuss these issues openly and honestly. This is a practical matter, not a moral one.

 

[Ninja]

An argument for what? That Neoconservatism is a Jewish conspriracy?

American Jews overwhelmingly support Democrats, the same party that you claim won't start a war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel.

I can think of quite a few prominent Gentile Neoconservatives. One of them is currently considered the favorite to win the Republican primary.

And what was so damning about the Strauss quote in your article? Strauss spent a great deal of time pondering the Jewish Question - the relationship between Diaspora jews and the non-Jews they lived with. What is so damning about that?

leik zOmG!!!!!!11111

 

[dilloduck]

Gentlemen and gentle ladies:

"Straussians" are JEWS. J-E-W-S Jews with a capital "J" and that stands for JEWS.

That's the alpha and the omega of this story. "Neoconservatives" are Jews who were liberals when that was convenient for Jewish purposes and turned to militarism when it became apparent that the Democrats would not wage war in the Middle East for Israel.

Just so nobody gets confused.

It would be a mighty big step if people would even research neoconservatism and read WHO are the players.

 

[Diuretic]

It would be a mighty big step if people would even research neoconservatism and read WHO are the players.

Quite a few are Jews. Quite a few are former leftists. Quite a few are former extremist leftists. Quite a few are Jews who were former extremist leftists.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19950...achronism-the-neoconservative-revolution.html

Think about it.

 

[Ruby]

Quite a few are Jews. Quite a few are former leftists. Quite a few are former extremist leftists. Quite a few are Jews who were former extremist leftists.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19950...achronism-the-neoconservative-revolution.html

Think about it.

Mostly they were all people who liked the "neoliberalism" model. It has so little to do with liberals and much to do with "free markets" and global govt concepts.....with all those fine people at the top of the "free markets" running the show. Not much to do with actual "liberal" values like respect for human rights, sovereignty, environment etc.

 

[Ruby]

It would be a mighty big step if people would even research neoconservatism and read WHO are the players.

It would be an even bigger step if they took a hard look at what they advocated and who has supported and helped make those policies a reality and stopped clinging to labels that dont fit.

 

[Diuretic]

Mostly they were all people who liked the "neoliberalism" model. It has so little to do with liberals and much to do with "free markets" and global govt concepts.....with all those fine people at the top of the "free markets" running the show. Not much to do with actual "liberal" values like respect for human rights, sovereignty, environment etc.

Yes and their religion is irrelevant. What I think is relevant is their former hard left philosophy. It's swapping one form of authoritarianism for another.

 

[Ninja]

Say what you want about the philosophical source of Neoconservatism, the guy made a damn good pair of jeans

 

[Ruby]

Yes and their religion is irrelevant. What I think is relevant is their former hard left philosophy. It's swapping one form of authoritarianism for another.

I agree that their religion is completely irrevelant as well. In fact, its a ridiculous distraction.

 

[Diuretic]

Say what you want about the philosophical source of Neoconservatism, the guy made a damn good pair of jeans

Damn right!

 

[Larkinn]

From your previous post:

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.​

As you stated above, pointing out a conflict of interest doesn't necessarily constitute an ad hominem attack - so we agree. No where did I claim Mr. Kristol was "lying." I rescind my admission of making an ad hominem and appreciate that you have come around and now understand that I made a valid point.

*sigh*...lying/incorrect means lying or incorrect. One or the other, or both. You attacked him to discredit his argument which is the very definition of an ad hominem. Going to flip flop again and admit to it again?

You, on the other hand, attempted to bolster the validity of his op-ed by pointing out his status as a prominent Neoconservative, without citing anything from the article itself.

Yes, its called appeal to authority. It is especially effective in arguments which are completely subjective. Its a definitional argument really, what makes up neoconservatism. What exactly do you expect me to cite as evidence if not this?

Your detachment from reality and deliberate ignorance aside, this is an ad hominem argument. A logical fallacy. From your keyboard. Yes, it most certainly demonstrates a lack of "logic skills."

Incorrect. An Ad hominem is attacking an arguement. I was defending his argument. Here read a bit about it and educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

To say any op-ed is "completely true" is laughable, regardless of the political leanings of the author. What a fucking joke you are. Completely true? I'm embarrassed for you. Seriously.

It is an authority describing exactly what they are an authority about. Hence, completely true.

A libtard arguing that an op-ed written by a very prominent Neoconservative is "completely true" - WOW. This is like simultaneously watching the lunar landing and a clown taking a shit while rollerblading - you get to watch an historic event and someting utterly absurd all at once.

I, unlike you, don't believe someone is lying or telling the truth based on their political affiliations.

Again: If Irving Kristol can create new Paleoconservative Weekly Standard readers, his son will make more money. I call this a "vested interest." Hence, it was expedient for Mr. Kristol to sugarcoat (and again, I didn't say "lying," since we know you like to read words that aren't there) Neoconservatism to make it sound more similar to Paleoconservatism and less similar to Liberalism.

Which would mean that it was incorrect. And another use of the ad hominem. How fun.

Unfortunately that doesn't address your use of the ad hominem argument.

*sigh*...since you are apparently too stupid to follow the progression of the conversation I will have to spell it out for you.

It started out with this comment by snowman

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!)

I responded by saying:

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".

Hence, what you said (that I am "too fucking stupid") is NOT an ad hominem. Then you went on some strange tangent about Kristol and accusing me of making ad hominems or some shit. I said that YOU did not make an ad hominem at that point, which you somehow interpreted as me claiming that I did not make one. Read what is quoted for fucks sake, its not that hard.

I hope you aren't in academia - your peer reviews would be atrocious if you tried doing studies with a sample size of one.

Yes they would. Where you got that impression from that I would do that is beyond me.

Let's clarify this: I've never claimed to be above the fray. I'm a dick, I make personal attacks, I like hurting feelings, and I thrive on the unhappiness of others. I luxuriate in my immaturity. You, on the other hand, make personal attacks, spout a few holier-than-thou platitudes as if that somehow absolves you of your "silly insults," and then revert to victim mode and whine about being hated. LOL

Whine? I was making an observation in response to someone elses post. I really don't care whether you hate/love/feel indifferent towards me.

But that's all irrelevent. What matters is that one sentence on my part neither proves nor disproves whether or not you deserve the lame insult award.

Its important that something YOU wrote has no effect on whether I deserve the lame insult award? Do you often find things that are blindingly obvious to be important?

BTW were those your "logic skills" at work?

A few of them. I take it you didn't understand it.

That quip was beyond gay. Take your politically correct piety and your fake outrage and go fuck yourself. People with an extra Chromosome 21 are now a race?

Mongoloid originally referred to Mongols. Again, educate yourself next time.

That you've played the race card is telling - that's the typical libtard diversion tactic to be used when an intellectually superior foe is waxing one's ass.

/pat snowman. Feel free to believe that if it really makes you feel better.

Okay. Silly insults. You sure got me!

Yes, I did.

My responses have been spot-on. Every time I have responded to you on this board, my responses have been spot-on. I find decimating your arguments (I used the word in its loosest possible definition) to be orgasmic. I have done this with a 100% success rate whether the subject is compulsory gun ownership in Switzerland, what acquittal means in our criminal justice system, or the idiocy of treating an op-ed published by Rupert Murdock in a Neocon rag as indisputable historical fact.

Lmfao...like your constantly contradictory comments about what an ad hominem is and your failure to understand basic english? "spot on"...well I guess if your standards are that low, who am I to attempt to raise them?

I'm curious...do you also declare yourself the victor in the thread about the "Canadian" healthcare system which you just got anally raped in?

Write as though English is your first language and it shouldn't be a problem for us to interpret you correctly.

Wow...I was assuming you would figure out why you misinterpreted me. I guess I gave you too much credit. It had nothing to do with what I said, merely you were not reading what I was responding too in my statements and hence continually assumed I was referring to a particular thing, incorrectly.

 

[dilloduck]

I agree that their religion is completely irrevelant as well. In fact, its a ridiculous distraction.

Not any more riduculous than the claims that Bushs' "appeasement" of the Christian religious right.

 

[Paulie]

Not any more riduculous than the claims that Bushs' "appeasement" of the Christian religious right.

Oh come on! The Christian right basically voted him in in '04. Kerry didn't even bother campaigning in southern red states for this very reason.

You don't think this has to do with his position on religious social issues?

He double-crossed the conservatives who voted for him in 2000 for his small government, no nation-building platform by obviously NOT sticking to that, but still managed to hold onto the staunch christian base who could care less about things like that as long as gays can't marry and stem-cell research and abortion are opposed.

The man is a fraud. One of the worst politicians in US history, and that's without even counting his handling of Iraq.

He doesn't even deserve the credit he DOES still get these days...who is GW Bush without Karl Rove...


And on a different note, I think the reason neo-cons are accused of being jewish/israeli conspiratists is because there's so many prominent neo-cons that are jewish, or dual citizens of Israel.

We can probably all agree though, that Bush 43's administration has been way more supportive of Israel than any other administration. It sometimes seems to me that the U.S. is forsaken for Israel's "best interest". Israel can defend itself, and SHOULD.

If you like Israel so much, go fucking live there.

 

[Ninja]

*sigh*...lying/incorrect means lying or incorrect. One or the other, or both. You attacked him to discredit his argument which is the very definition of an ad hominem.

Lying and incorrect connote two completely different things. Lying and sugarcoating connote two completely different things as well. As you said, pointing out a conflict of interest does not constitute an ad hominem.

flip flop

That is called pseudorefutation. It is a logical fallacy. Read up: http://ipfw.edu/phil/faculty/Long/Summer%2004/120SU204/6MoreFallacies.ppt

Yes, its called appeal to authority.

It's also called a genetic fallacy. Both are logical fallacies. I suggest you read this again: http://ipfw.edu/phil/faculty/Long/Summer 04/120SU204/6MoreFallacies.ppt

It is especially effective in arguments which are completely subjective.

No, it is not. It is a logical fallacy.

What exactly do you expect me to cite as evidence if not this?

Uh, how about anything more than relying on a genetic fallacy and asserting that "it's completely true" ad nauseum?

If you introduce an op-ed as evidence, the burden of proof lies with you. This is reasonable. In your own words: [Y]ou CAN prove a specific "negative" such as someone did NOT lie.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=602960&postcount=27

Of the three points you cited from Mr. Kristol's article, only one (cutting taxes) is truly reconcilable with how Neocons govern in the real world. Mr. Kristol's view on the role of the state is the diametric opposite of how NeoCons govern - both the size of our government and federal spending have increased more per year under Bush than under Clinton. In this respect, Bush governs more like a Liberal than a Conservative. His views on patriotism and world government do not fall under a Liberal or Conservative umbrella. Are Liberals less patriotic? Do Liberals want world government? From the points you cited in response to TheHawk's post, I would have to assume you do believe this.

Assuming that's the case, then you'd also have to agree that real life Neocons are more similar to Liberals than Conservatives, if the conspiracy theorists are to be given any credence. Many people argue that Neoconservatism is the political movement of world government (NAFTA Superhighway, North American Union, Amero, etc.).

Incorrect. An Ad hominem is attacking an arguement. I was defending his argument. Here read a bit about it and educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"It's completely true" is not a defense.

It is an authority describing exactly what they are an authority about. Hence, completely true.

Another appeal to authority and genetic fallacy. You have not proven it to be completely true. You have based your arguments on logical fallacies, however.

I, unlike you, don't believe someone is lying or telling the truth based on their political affiliations.

This implies that I stated that lying can be attributed to a given political affiliation. I wrote the opposite - that I am skeptical of op-eds regardless of the author's political leanings.

Which would mean that it was incorrect. And another use of the ad hominem. How fun.

As you said, pointing out a conflict of interest in and of itself does not constitute an ad hominem. Get over it.

Hence, what you said (that I am "too fucking stupid") is NOT an ad hominem. Then you went on some strange tangent about Kristol and accusing me of making ad hominems or some shit. I said that YOU did not make an ad hominem at that point, which you somehow interpreted as me claiming that I did not make one. Read what is quoted for fucks sake, its not that hard.

I called you stupid in order to attack your credibility. Ad personam is a subtype of the ad hominem argument, per your Wiki link. You, sir, apparently do not fully understand what constitutes an ad hominem.

Yes they would. Where you got that impression from that I would do that is beyond me.

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. There is not a reviewer in the world who would accept a paper for publication in a scholarly journal if the authors had used a sample size of one - which is what you did.

Its important that something YOU wrote has no effect on whether I deserve the lame insult award? Do you often find things that are blindingly obvious to be important?

You were the one who said it had an effect. You said that MY sentence proved that YOU did not deserve the lame insult award. Would you like me to take a screen shot so you can see for yourself?

A few of them. I take it you didn't understand it

.

Would you care to enumerate which particular logic skills of yours were on display when you said that my single sentence proved that you do not make the most silly insults?

My sentence most definitely contained silly insults. This neither proves nor disproves whether or not you use more, yet you claimed that it did.

Mongoloid originally referred to Mongols. Again, educate yourself next time.

Yes, I am familiar with the etymology of the word mongoloid. It has far more recently been used as a derogatory term applied to people with Down Syndrome. This was obvious from the context in which I used it.

Lmfao...like your constantly contradictory comments about what an ad hominem is and your failure to understand basic english? "spot on"...well I guess if your standards are that low, who am I to attempt to raise them?

Where exactly have I contradicted myself? Seems to me I've pointed out plenty of contradictions from your keyboard, however.

I'm curious...do you also declare yourself the victor in the thread about the "Canadian" healthcare system which you just got anally raped in?

I haven't posted in any threads discussing the "Canadian" healthcare system. Would you care to provide a link?

Wow...I was assuming you would figure out why you misinterpreted me. I guess I gave you too much credit. It had nothing to do with what I said, merely you were not reading what I was responding too in my statements and hence continually assumed I was referring to a particular thing, incorrectly.

I have not misinterpreted you. I have successfully used your words against you. Nice run-on sentence BTW.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Engels was from a German family but they owned factories in England, I suppose you'd call him an industrialist now. Marx, sure enough was a Ph.D., but he was a journalist of sorts who got booted out of his native Germany and then France for being a wild-eyed revolutionary. He was supported by Engels when he lived in London and I think he was a full time writer then. Marx died in 1883, Engels read his eulogy.

I stand corrected. Like many academics, however, they had no real life experience upon which to base their economic and social theories. They were, at best, a pair of dilettantes. Yet their influence has been felt by many the world over since their deaths.