What to do if Neo-Con Is Found In Load
- Thread starter diesel96
- Start date
solitarysiren
Happiness in Slavery...
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
wkmac
Well-Known Member
It's a mystery alright, but we've got our best men working on it...
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's a 2 thumber for sure.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Diesel,
I saw something this morning that makes me wonder if the democratic side may not be starting to fall apart with it's core base. Cindy Sheehan has announced she is retiring so to speak for the anti-war movement and she had some awefully harsh words for the democrats and let it be known in no uncertain terms she was through with them. Now granted Cindy in not the party base by any stretch but the recent Iraq spending bill and the democrat failure to at the least have some kind of timeline in the mix maybe a deal breaker within some elements of the democrat voting core.
I would agree the so-called ultra right is not going to place itself anywhere in the mix come 08' or at least that element that has proposed war at any cost but where that leaves us no one can tell. Also what you can't not count on is the Gingrich or the Fred Thompson factor. These guys are seen (right or wrongly) as a conservative especially on the fiscal side of things and they may be remembered more for what was done from say 94' till about 97' than what happened after the fact and the excess that took place.
From the fiscal argument, they can and likely will blame GW and company for the fiscal excess and sell themselves as the savior to return our gov't to a more limited role in American life. Now I've known New't since he began in National politics back in the late 70's and he was my Congressman in his years as speaker and he's no rookie by any stretch although I don't trust him and never have since I saw him in the early 80's behind the scenes trying to outst what was at the time one of the most conservative proponents of VERY limited federal gov't there was in the late Larry McDonald. His reason? Larry was a democrat! Newt was all about party whereas Larry was about principle as it comes with politicians at this level. Newt also IMO showed his true colors when Clinton and even Al Gore spoke of changing Social Security into some type of private system but Newt and his cronies shut it down and instead wasted time on going after Bill for getting a knob job. A real chance to move principle and instead they thought only of themselves. That's true colors folks IMO.
Newt and Fred both are watching to see if the otherside fractionalizes and divides before they make a move because on the republican side, you've got a class of at best, 3rd stringers running IMO. If the other side of the isle divides, then watch for either Newt or Fred to jump in and you can bet they saw Cindy Sheehan's announcement this morning and their mouths began to water.
Diesel, before you breakout the bubbly, you'd better watch your party core base and what Newt and Fred do!
JMO
If things fragment, it is very possible a 3rd party could emerge and play a very important role in the 08' elections.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
I'am quite confident that any Rep who publicly supports the continuation of the Iraq Occupation/War will not get elected.There's a new generation of young voters for the last 8 yrs have grown up with war/enviroment/religious fanatisim/healthcare and economic concerns.World opinion of invovlement is also negative,our dependencey for foreign oil keeps us involved in the middle east for years to come.
As far as Cindy Sheehan is concern,like you said,she doesn't represent mainstream Dems(niether does Rosie).Cindy has other issues also like her other children,like immediate stoppage of our troops in Iraq,which Dems didn't provide for her.
Politics and deadlines dictated the war funding bill,Yes Dems want our troops out of Iraq(with a deadline) but we don't want Bush to leave them their with no funding.Hence Veto..Knowing the war funding bill had to be finalized,Dems had no choice to pass a compromise before deadline. Anyway the pres.canidates(osama & hillary) voted against it as to not be accused of flip-floping by the war hungry reps and the far leftys come election time.I really don't see any dissension among mianstream Dems just the extreme left.
As far as Fred and Barney(I mean Newt of course) holding out,it could hurt them,they could be looked at as indecisive,create dissension among their fellow party candidates,afraid to debate the current issues of today, not a year from now.
And it could help them.Watching and observing the other canidates debate today's current events and levitate to the issues that effect us a year from now come closer to election time as to align themselves with public opinion so they won't have to flip flop on the issues.
I kind of look at them as Vultures waiting in the wind for someone in their own party to raise to the top and then swoop down and eat their own and lay their nomination eggs in the Rep nest of wasteland.
And don't forget Al Gore hasn't ruled himself out niether.
As far as Cindy Sheehan is concern,like you said,she doesn't represent mainstream Dems(niether does Rosie).Cindy has other issues also like her other children,like immediate stoppage of our troops in Iraq,which Dems didn't provide for her.
Politics and deadlines dictated the war funding bill,Yes Dems want our troops out of Iraq(with a deadline) but we don't want Bush to leave them their with no funding.Hence Veto..Knowing the war funding bill had to be finalized,Dems had no choice to pass a compromise before deadline. Anyway the pres.canidates(osama & hillary) voted against it as to not be accused of flip-floping by the war hungry reps and the far leftys come election time.I really don't see any dissension among mianstream Dems just the extreme left.
As far as Fred and Barney(I mean Newt of course) holding out,it could hurt them,they could be looked at as indecisive,create dissension among their fellow party candidates,afraid to debate the current issues of today, not a year from now.
And it could help them.Watching and observing the other canidates debate today's current events and levitate to the issues that effect us a year from now come closer to election time as to align themselves with public opinion so they won't have to flip flop on the issues.
I kind of look at them as Vultures waiting in the wind for someone in their own party to raise to the top and then swoop down and eat their own and lay their nomination eggs in the Rep nest of wasteland.
And don't forget Al Gore hasn't ruled himself out niether.
SeniorGeek
Below the Line
I do not recall seeing that post. I think the translation in your link is more recent than the one I read when I was an Economics major...long ago. It was a pamphlet when it was written, but today's attention span is not long enough to endure it. It is amazing how many of his thoughts can be turned into modern sound bites....
I searched for other translations, and found there have been quite a few. I remember Reagan mentioning Bastiat, and I wondered if he had really understood how "socialism" was defined (as he took us into record deficits I thought could never be surpassed). I find many people are using Bastiat's arguments against "socialism" without paying attention to how he defined "socialism". (Lots of people use Bastiat to say, "This tells us what is wrong with the Democrats" - even though The Republicans also fit his definition of socialists - or "This is why the 2004 Highway bill is wrong", or "Stop taxing...me".)
I think this has been difficult to translate - or there were those who wanted to translate it with their own bias. I found one translator's complaint that the people who hired him specified how he should translate (transliterate) a list of particular words, and the resulting loss of meaning.
The main attractions of Bastiat are consistency and simplicity/clarity. The main problem is that his ideas are high-level, and some details are ignored. How can a Corporation fit within Bastiat's law? Is it an organization that can plunder, using its size to advantage? Or is it simply a collection of individuals making a business arrangement?
The one thing I took away from reading this (about 30 years ago), and I still see The Law as a statement of warning about the direction all institutions will take - government, big businesses, unions, political parties, etc. We all have seen evidence that these institutions end up putting most of their effort into perpetuating themselves.
One could make a case that Bastiat's ideal world (especially if taken to an anarcho-capitalist extreme) would eventually turn into the exact mess we have today, or some other mess, because of the human behavior he warns about.
So here we are.
Last edited:
wkmac
Well-Known Member
As I read your comments about translations and the abuse that comes from it I could only think of the Bible itself and in the hundreds of translations that book has been subjected to. Talk about abuse! As for Bastiat, I've heard him quoted by people on all sides of the isle and some of them left me feeling like I'd just heard Hitler quoting Jesus on "Love Thy Neighbor." As for record deficits, what is ironic is the very party who makes fiscal responsibility a lynchpin of their mantra has given us 2 Presidents who have the most gross violation of that very foundation principle they are to hold in such high estreem. Reagan did do one thing for me in the 80' to 84' term and that was to chase me away from Democrat/Republican party politics for once and for all. I've never been back and the happier for it. Thank you so much for opening my eyes Gipper!
As for the corporation? I came away with the impression that the corporation would not have standing in Bastiat's world. At least not the state sanctioned type that is. I've been reading more and more about socialism from the Mussolini model and really looking at what effect he had prior to his joining the Axis pact and becoming a dirty word along with Hitler. If one reads about Mussolini's socialist model which is a Corporate State to be more exact and then look around at other western nations at the time one can't help but see those nations following much of the Mussolini model of societal plan and control.
Many of our most highly held western leaders were also known to have publically praised Mussolini's work or others who at the time wrote other works and ideas based off the same principles. Right now I'm reading more and more from the legislative record on FDR's National Recovery Act enacted in 1933' which in effect takes the entire business economy and under the guise of fair competition, gov't price supports and promoting employment all in the name of fighting the depression. In hindsight of history IMO it made matters worse and delayed the end of the depression era but you'll get mixed views on that obviously. The courts in 1935' overturned the Act on a variety of grounds but it laid the bedrock and created the scenario by which America was really transformed in many respects more towards the Mussolini model especially in regards to economics than we would want to admit or realize or at least that is how I see it.
What is even further of interest is how the large major business interests of the day came to the table with FDR and paraded the NRA model and even help craft much of the legislation. Now tell me, how fair and equitible do you really think these guys were at the end of the day? Now in the present look at us and tell me based on what you see in Washington and the control of K Street and tell me just how successful those giants of industry of that day were? Public works spending went to a new level with the NRA and what impact has that presented to us today? The 1800's railroad from coast to coast was child's play to what we have today but then all diseases start with just a single cell of a germ that can end in death.
This is a vast and complex subject that is impossible to cover all here in one post or even several although I'd very much enjoy a good discussion on it as I'm sure more eyes looking at it would reveal more I haven't considered that would be both pro and con to what I'm thinking.
As to the corporation as we know it specifically in western law is a Roman empirical vessel of State titled priviledge IMO and is in some sense a type of Title of Nobility so to speak. In an odd kinda twist I see ourselves having in some odd way having returned to a modified feudal system that our forefathers fought to get from under not only 250 years ago but going back even further to native soil for many of us. I guess King John is smiling see the Magna Carta lying on the ground and trampled into pieces of dust but then he might not as he would see his barons as corp. heads having actually won the day afterall.
You spoke of anarcho-captialism to it's extreme and yes just like any other system or model so too can it's extreme come into play. It's the manifestation of human nature plain and simple and I've always felt this was best expressed by what is known as the old farmer's prayer and it goes like this.
"Lord, I come before you as a simple man of simple means with only one simple request. Lord, grant me the 100 arces next to mine!"
I've always seen that simple pray as the absolute essence of what it the nature of man. He means no ill will or harm to others or at least consiously it's not his intent but deep inside his desire is to have what others at the moment possess that may cause him to violate deeply held principles as the desire becomes so great as the closer the prize gets to him. Now couple that want and desire with the force and effect of law and legitimze it with the elective process and you have the foundational soup for tyranny, misery, pain and oppression. That my friend is why I have such an opposition to the super state and resist it's measures where I see it and can understand it's presense and impact.
This is exactly what so many fear and that we've traded the old cold war for a new boogy man that not only allows for another level of gov't bureacracy but in the spirit of the subject matter above, what public spending will be generated as a result? What business sector or sectors will be the largest recepient of public funds under the guise of supporting these efforts? What public corp. will most benefit and what corp. will suffer from our American Corp. State as to who has the standing on K Street that positions them for the kill of the coming century? Now what will all this cost and where will the money come from? Answer that one you fiscal conservative types who talk empirical New World Order globalism on one hand while denouncing the gov't with the other on such issues as Social Security, public assistance and the evils of the income tax.
You know, if I were an Iraqi and saw an American trying to bring that system to me I might pick up a gun and fight against it too. Our forefathers sure as hell did!
American Adminstrator in Iraq: "We come in peace and want to give you a civilized system of public assistance, social security, an income tax system and we can even show you how to set up a very good border control system. This is what we want to do for you!
Iraqi: LOCK AND LOAD BOYS! And bring me plenty of ammo!
Boy that gives it a different perspective.
But I know some folks will be happy to know that Rome will have it's legions garrisoned in these quarters under the belief that they are being protected from the evil barbarians out to either destroy them or enslave them to the beliefs of the barbarian religions. If the Goths are able to ultimately defeat us good Romans, it will happen because we abandoned liberty and the spirit of individual freedom and enveloped ourselves in the cesspool of controlled collectivism under the guise of loyality to the so-called free state and false ideals that we have been conditioned to believe what they have taught us are the bedrock of our forefathers.
JMHO.
Hail to the Empire!
tieguy
Banned
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Well said my friend! Loved the idea of electing a pollster. In a humorous way of course.
The so called "ultra right' has had it's day in the sun and the recent election IMO is proof. However, the democrat swing in Congress wasn't a confirmation of the opposite "liberal" agenda either IMO. If you really look at the democrats newly elected, most would be pigeonholed as moderate. Contary to popular neo-con myth, Hillary is more moderate than radical left as some would wish her to be. She gets jumped for her universal healthcare idea but look at Bush with prescription drugs for example? Right out of Hillary's playbook. And Newt himself has been hanging with Hillary has suggested some aspects of universal healthcare. Why monkey around with wanna-bees, vote in the real deal and get it for the same price! You boys are being dragged down the primrose path and don't even see it or is it the simple fact that deep inside you're one of "THEM" also?
What gets folks thinking the demos are off into Karl Marx land is ultra right hype but also I think people see the democrat leadership itself as meaning this would be the case. For example, Murtha if speaker I think would have fought much harder to actually end the entire Iraq engagement and I also think he would be after Bush like a beagle on a rabbit but I'm not sure how "far lefty" he would go on the rest of the agenda.
Pelosi won the day, (actually moderates Hoyer and Reid are running the show) but she's not gonna push in these areas like Murtha would have. Also Pelosi is at disadvantage being the first woman speaker so she's under a microscope for that reason. Yeah, it's unfair for us to look at her this way but we're human.
I really and honestly don't think the democrats in Washington are totally opposed to war or even Iraq. They ran almost in unision to vote to support it and I'll bet my entire fortune if the events in Iraq were the opposite and going well that they would be doing everything to get credit for being the good guy. In the Clinton years they supported the very same thing in NationBuilding with the Balkans and ironically it was the repubs playing the now democrat role of obstructionist. Some things never change I guess. The democrats aren't acting like this because they're democrats, but because they're people, it's human nature. I actually take some comfort in that because to me it proves they are not hardcore idealogues. But it can run amuck too so that does concern me.
The Dems correctly see a great chance of taking the White House next year and rightly so. I would agree that if nothing dramatic changes, that very thing is likely to happen. I think all they want out of Iraq is to move it as much out of the way as they can before Jan. 09' so that they can focus on domestic agenda that allows them to use that mechanism to lock in voters even more so to ensure they maintain a majority power base from that point forward. And granted we do have a number of domestic concerns although IMO all were caused by the gov't in the first place and track records show they only make matters worse in the end. BTW: Wait until the 08' election really gets into full swing and the repub. candidates come out and condemn Bush as a failure in order to gain votes. You heard it here folks!
Ultra right. It amazes me to see that term and look at that idea today but then look back to the early 70's when I first walked into the voting booth and see what was called ultra right then. Ultra Right today is the so-called Neo-Con who believes in the spirit and tradition of FDR but also in the Wilsonian model of Globalism under the umbrella of democracy. Wilson's ideals (really Edward Mandel House's, read his book Phillip Dru, Administrator) of a global governing body (League of Nations) to advance democracy failed but not really because it was revived 20 something years later by FDR and finalized by Truman. Neo-Cons speak glowingly of FDR and even Wilson as great visionaires and great leaders who gave us wonderful and great policies under the federal banner that advanced life for the average American. I even believe the new ultra right longs for the Warren Court days.
If you don't get that then read up on Earl Warren and then it's become clear.In the 70's the ultra rightist railed against FDR and Wilson. Globalism and New World Order were fighting words and the ultra right principle was against anything that in any way looked socialist or Marxist so big gov't programs were obviously a no-no and it mattered not what the excuse was. Vietnam had mixed emotions as well because ultra rightist were hard anti-communists and the belief of the day was a rouse called the domino theory that Marxism would conquer the world one country at a time. Never mind that the French had taken control of a free Vietnam in the 1800's and it was their presense and societial abuse that set this whole war up. This lead to the Geneva Accords in 1954' that split Vietnam into 2 countrys. Ironically it was the French and British who siezed control of the Middle East after WW1 and....you beginning to see a pattern here like we keep coming from behind and cleaning up someone else's mess? I thought we broke and freed ourselves from being the houseboy of the old world European Empires?
Psst: you thought wrong there waldo!
The ultra rightist in the 60's and 70's was against gov't intervention but also very isolationist in foreign policy. The true 60's type ultra rightist is actually against the Iraq war and sees many of the policies resulting from 9/11 as a rouse and means for gov't to expand it's power while at the same time doing nothing to really ensure our safety. You feel safe? Let me bust that bubble. All one need to do is look at the most recent case of the Atlanta lawyer with TB who went galivanting all over the place while his name was on a "no fly" list and all security parties were on alert to detain him if he was spotted. In the meantime, he went right on under his real name and using his ID so do you honestly still believe these guys will protect you? What about your President's Immigration fix? You feeling warm and fuzzy are you? He screwed you and didn't even have the descency to use lube or even a wet kiss.
In the Reagan era Goldwater wouldn't jump on the anti-abortion bandwagon and the Bible thumping moralist movement not because he disagreed with those principles but because he saw no place for this at the federal level. These were local matters and the feds had no say in them to begin with. As a result, Goldwater in his waining years was deemed a traitor, "he's gone to the darkside" was the cry but in fact he was maintaining the very same principles he always had and one that so-called rightwing politics of the earlier era has always maintained. Pat Buchannan because he's opposed the Middle East warmachine and the whole New World Order idea and been outted as some kind of nutjob with a loose screw. Now he and I part company when it comes to gov't mandating morals although we share many of the same morals on a personal level but I love him when he speaks out in the area of foreign policy. I didn't like Daddy 1's New World Order ideas and I don't like Jr. 2's coming in and using another rouse to take up the same mantra and take us in the same direction. And now this week we learn from Jr. that he envisons an American military presense in Iraq 50 years from now. Hell, no wonder he's in no hurry over there!
If you want to see and make an interesting comparison, look back at democrats like Henry Scoop Jackson or Hubert Humphrey and to some degree even George McGovern. Look at what they were saying at the time and what ideals and policies they promoted and go right over to some neo-conic websites like American Enterprise Institute or Project for a New American Century and read your heros of Newt Gingrich or Bill Kristol, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and many of your other heros and then compare them to what was once described as ultra liberal and you just about can't tell the difference between a 60's ultra liberal and a new millenium neo-con. The neo-con cloak of the label "compassionate conservative" means global warrior whose Roman legends will civilize the barbaric hoards to the glory of Rome under the banner of so-called greek democracy otherwise known as Love American Style. Remember that show anyine?) At the same time advancing the do-gooder gov't programs by just making them business efficent either by bringing in private business principles or privatizing them in order to allow the K Street connected to make money. More so the latter than the former IMO.
It is so ironic that the ultra liberal of the 60's is now the ultra rightist of the new millenium. Hang in there guys because if this keeps up in about 30 more years, your ultra right candidate for global leader will be a Hillary, Obama or even a Nancy Pelosi! Just think in a few more years the ultra right will worship these 3 as icons and societal visionairies!
I'll either be to old to give a rats ass, dead or living somewhere else while the Empire awaits it's own fate against a modern day Goth and Visigoth hoard! As it's going right now I'm working towards option 3! Does anyone have any property for sell in say.....Antartica? I like the penguins because they keep to themselves in large herds and don't involve or force their unwanted presence into my life unlike you humans so we should get along peachy!
LMAO!!!!!
osustuident
Member
Neo-Con is a term used by anti-Semites to describe Jewish Republicans!!!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
WOW! BUSH IS
JEWISH?
Damn you guys for not keeping me up on this kind of stuff and letting me get blindsided which such important details.
WAIT! IS GINGRICH JEWISH TOO?
And he was my Congressman for Heavens sake.
AND WHAT ABOUT FRED THOMPSON?
Wait a minute, yeah he's jewish, he's from Hollywood.
You know I could go on having fun with such ignorant stupidity as this but I've got steaks to grill.
osustuident
Member
Its absolutely true, come out of your anti-semite closet , congrats on eating steak though, I thought all you Libs were vegatarians!!!
, congrats on eating steak though, I thought all you Libs were vegatarians!!!
Last edited:
WOW! BUSH IS
JEWISH?
Damn you guys for not keeping me up on this kind of stuff and letting me get blindsided which such important details.
WAIT! IS GINGRICH JEWISH TOO?
And he was my Congressman for Heavens sake.
wkmac, Bush had me fooled too, I thought all this time he is Methodist like myself. Newt used to be my Congressman too before Gov. Roy Barnes gerrymandered our Congressional voting districts. I didn't know he was Jewish too. Fred Thompson, I had no clue he is Jewish, since he is from Hollywood, I thought he might be one of those Scientologists, like Tom Cruise.
osustuident
Member
Look I know politics is obviously not your field of expertise, OBVIOUSLY!!! If it was you would know George W. Bush, Fred Thompson, and Newt are not considered Neo-Cons around the beltway. Alot of the people W brought into his administration are considered to be "Neo-Con". I'm surprised your left-wing blogs haven't informed you of this fact.
SeniorGeek
Below the Line
I had not heard that definition. Maybe that is why so much of the foreign press uses the term "NeoLiberals" - so it can be applied to someone based upon their politics.
I imagine that a lot of people use the term because they think it is about someone's politics, not that person's race.
These "Jewish Republicans" must be ethnic Jews, right? - Not necessarily practicing the Jewish faith? Or is the term applied to Repubs who have converted to Judaism, too?
