Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Royal Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-12-2013, 11:52 AM  
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
The label "Neocon" has lost all meaning

I don't agree with this guy's suggestion for an alternative, but he does a great job explaining why "neocon" is an essentially meaningless phrase now.

It's long, but if you're one of the people who likes to throw the neocon label around, you should read it so that you can clear up the confusion from which you're obviously suffering. It's one of the best, most succinct explanations of the origin of the term and it's nonsensical evolution over time that I've read.
‘Neoconservative’ Needs to Be Retired. Why Not Try ‘Imperialist’?
by Peter Beinart Jun 5, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
Sure, people love to bash them, but what exactly are neoconservatives? Are they hawks, or just Jewish hawks? Peter Beinart on the increasingly incoherent definition—and why we should try ‘imperialist.’
Earlier this week, I Googled “neocons and Syria” and learned that the former want America to go war in the latter. The first story Google offered me was by David Corn in Mother Jones. “How to Be a Good Neocon When It Comes to Syria,” read the headline. The subtitle read: “With Obama moving cautiously, some hawks are angling for a US invasion.”

Got it, I thought. “Neocon” is a synonym for “hawk.” But then, in the first sentence, Corn wrote that the “most hawkish neocons desire ... a full US military presence in the air and on the ground.” Hmm. If some neocons are more hawkish than others, then “neocon” and “hawk” can’t be the same thing. Four paragraphs later, Corn referred to former Bush-administration ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton as a “neocon favorite.” Why just a “favorite,” I thought. Why not a “neocon” himself? Then, in the next paragraph, Corn explained that “real neocons, it seems, do not get squishy when the question is US troops on Syrian soil.” So there are fake neocons? How do you tell the difference?

Bob Dreyfuss in The Nation made things worse. “Neocons, Hill Democrats Push for War Against Syria,” read the headline of his piece. So neocons can’t be Democrats or work on Capitol Hill? Three sentences later Dreyfuss made a distinction between “neoconservatives and right-wing military types,” which presumably means that you can’t be a neoconservative while in uniform.

After that I tried Ann McFeatters in the Chicago Sun-Times, who defined neocons as “the people who got us into war in Iraq and Afghanistan” but “most” of whom “personally have never been to war.” Then I gave up.

My beef isn’t with Corn, Dreyfuss, or McFeatters. They’re symptoms of a larger problem. For decades, but especially since the Iraq War, people have been bashing neocons without coherently defining who they are. Ostensibly, the term refers to a distinct foreign-policy perspective. But no such distinct perspective still exists. To really understand the way people use the term today, you have to fuse an ideological category with a religious or ethnic one. Frequently, what neocon really means is “Jewish hawk.” In that way, it’s a bit like “gangbanger,” “mobster,” “illegal” (the noun), or even “terrorist,” terms that could theoretically refer to someone of any religious, ethnic, or racial group but in America today are often reserved for members of only one. Liberals are supposed to abhor that sort of thing and find less loaded terms where they can. Which is why we should stop using “neocon” before any more damage is done.

Once upon a time, neoconservative did mean something distinct. In the 1960s and 1970s, a group of intellectuals with roots on the left began to critique their own side. They feared that in their zeal to overcome poverty and injustice, the liberal reformers of the day were eroding the institutions that upheld social order. Yes, the police were sometimes abusive and racist, but disempowering them and letting criminals run free might prove worse. Yes, urban slums were bad, but bulldozing them in favor of housing projects drawn up on some reformers’ blackboard might cause more suffering and alienation. When the New Left, which had emerged to fight racism and the Vietnam War, began arguing not only that America needed to be radically transformed at home but that the United States was a force for evil around the world, these intellectuals counterattacked. By the 1980s, some of them, like Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol, and Norman Podhoretz, had drifted into the Republican Party and truly earned the name “neo”—or new—conservatives. Others, like Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, never did.

But whether or not they embraced the term, for a time in the 1970s the people called neoconservatives did believe something distinct. Unlike mainstream conservatives, they believed in government intervention in the economy. They did not consider the welfare state a threat to individual freedom. But unlike mainstream liberals, they thought government intervention had overreached. And despite Vietnam, they believed the Cold War was still worth fighting. Many of these early neoconservatives were Jewish. Some—like Kirkpatrick, Moynihan, and Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson—were not. But because the term referred to something ideologically distinct, it was at least possible to use it as something other than code for Jews.

By the 1990s, neoconservatism meant something very different. A younger group of neocons was gaining prominence: people like Irving Kristol’s son, William; columnist Charles Krauthammer, and former Bush-administration officials Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, and Elliott Abrams. More firmly ensconced than their elders in the GOP, these “second generation” neocons did not champion a distinct domestic agenda. They either echoed the right’s hostility to the welfare state or ignored the subject entirely.

But when it came to foreign policy, these new neocons did advocate something distinct. In the 1990s, many on the right—including, ironically, some of the older neoconservatives—argued that with the Soviet Union gone, the United States could retreat from its global commitments. “Most of the important military obligations that we assumed were once important are now outdated,” wrote Kirkpatrick in 1990. Irving Kristol called for withdrawing U.S. troops from Germany. In 1996 Pat Buchanan, arguing that America must resign as global policeman, won New Hampshire’s Republican presidential primary. Speaking in 2000 about his Republican colleagues in Congress, Sen. John McCain observed that “an issue or crisis comes up, and their reaction is almost Pavlovian: don’t send troops.”

The second-generation neoconservatives, by contrast, argued that even without a clear global adversary, the United States should use its superpower status to prevent new contenders from arising. Instead of allowing anti-American regimes to gain the strength that might come from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, America should disarm or overthrow them, thus nipping potential dangers in the bud. “The United States may be faced with the question of whether to take military steps to prevent the deployment or use of weapons of mass destruction,” wrote a draft of the 1992 “Defense Planning Guidance” produced in Wolfowitz’s Pentagon office. Added William Kristol and Kagan in 2000, “The United States can set about making trouble for hostile and potentially hostile states rather than waiting for them to make trouble for us.”

Many prominent second-generation neocons were Jews. Some—like Zalmay Khalilzad, the Wolfowitz deputy who wrote the “Defense Planning Guidance,” and John Bolton of the American Enterprise Institute—were not. But in the 1990s, they all believed in expanding America’s global military dominance and confronting potential threats through preventive war, regime change, or both. And this made “neoconservative” in the 1990s, as in the 1970s, a term with some ideological coherence, a term that meant more than just “hawkish Jew.”

That’s less true today. In the 1990s, men like Kristol, Bolton, Wolfowitz, and Krauthammer differed from other prominent conservatives in their demand that the United States pursue an aggressive foreign policy even in the absence of a Cold War–style threat. But for almost everyone who mattered on the right, that kind of threat returned on 9/11. In an instant, the distinction between neoconservative and plain old conservative foreign policy shrank. Almost every Republican in Congress, even those who had been anti-interventionist in the 1990s, supported invading Afghanistan and Iraq. So did President George W. Bush, who in 2000, while Kristol and Kagan were calling for preventive attacks on potentially hostile regimes, had said in his second debate with Al Gore that “I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country [and] say ‘We do it this way; so should you.’”

It’s understandable that “neoconservative” became so ubiquitous after 9/11. Once the World Trade Center fell, Bush adopted the strategy of preventive war, regime change, and military expansion that the neoconservatives had advocated in the 1990s. But after he did, it stopped being distinctively neoconservative. Even today, more than a decade later, the Cold War mindset reborn after 9/11 enjoys broad support on the right. With the exception of Ron and Rand Paul, virtually every national Republican politician insists that America cannot accept an Iranian nuclear weapon. Virtually all oppose large cuts in the defense budget. Virtually all believe the United States remains at “war” with jihadist terror. If espousing these views makes you a neoconservative, then every major Republican presidential aspirant in 2012 except Paul and perhaps Jon Huntsman deserved the label.

I suspect this accounts for the ambiguity in Corn’s Mother Jones article about the relationship between neocons and hawks. If the two are synonymous, then neocon is too broad to serve much use, as the vast majority of Washington conservatives today are hawks. But if neocons are merely one kind of hawk, then what distinguishes them from all the rest?

One answer is faith in democracy. The neocons, some have suggested, are democratic expansionists. All hawks want America to extend its global dominance. The neocons believe extending democracy is crucial to that effort. Ergo: neocons are a distinct group.

The problem is that if you read the core statements of second-generation neoconservatism as it emerged in the 1990s—Krauthammer’s essays, the “Defense Planning Guidance” that Khalilzad wrote under Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney’s auspices, Kristol and Kagan’s call for a “neo-Reaganite” foreign policy, and the letters issued from their think tank, Project for a New American Century—they’re not primarily about spreading democracy. They’re about spreading American dominance.

It’s true that some neoconservatives believe the two are closely intertwined. In the 1990s, Kristol and Kagan backed Bill Clinton’s humanitarian wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. Kristol, Kagan, and Abrams all championed the revolution against Hosni Mubarak. But other key second-generation neocons disagree. Krauthammer called Clinton naive for expending blood and treasure to protect human rights and self-determination in the Balkans. “The essence of foreign policy,” he wrote during Kosovo, “is deciding which son of a bitch to support.” In 2002, he wrote of Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf that “we often need such dictators to win the larger struggle against a global threat to liberty.” In post-Mubarak Egypt, he’s argued that America should “do everything behind the scenes to help the military.” Bolton has also praised Musharraf, arguing that democracy is not “always the answer” and warning that letting the Muslim Brotherhood run in elections would put Egypt on the “road to disaster.”

One might argue that because they’re less enthralled with democratization, Krauthammer and Bolton aren’t real neocons. But it’s a mistake to put democratization at neoconservatism’s core. Kristol, Kagan, and Abrams are more optimistic than Krauthammer and Bolton that democracy can promote American hegemony, but even for them, democracy is valuable primarily as a means to that end. Kristol and Abrams, for instance, are sympathetic to bombing Iran even though it would be a disaster for the democracy movement there. And neither show much concern about the fundamentally undemocratic nature of Israeli control of the West Bank.

Besides, even if democratic expansionism were neoconservatism’s essence, journalists don’t define it that way. In February 2012, citing Abrams and Kristol’s support for the Egyptian uprising that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power, an article in The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey, asked, “How’s that Arab Spring working out for you, neocons?” Later that year, an article in the New Statesman, citing Krauthammer’s pessimism about Egypt’s revolution, declared, “Ignore the neocons—I refuse to give up on Egypt, or the Arab Spring.” Each article, in other words, identified “neocon” with a polar-opposite view of the Arab Spring.

Too often, what determines whether someone gets called a neocon is not what they believe but whether they’re Jewish. In his article, Corn identifies Richard Perle and the American Center for Democracy’s Rachel Ehrenfeld as neocons, while calling Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain hawks. But even if you believe neocons are especially interested in democracy promotion, Graham and McCain deserve the label as much as the others. Similarly, according to Google, articles including the words “neocon” or “neoconservative” comprise a far higher percentage of the references to Joe Lieberman than to McCain or Graham, even though the “three amigos” famously share similar foreign-policy views.

For his part, Dreyfuss sees Gen. Jack Keane as emblematic of “right-wing military types” while associating the American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka with “neoconservatives.” Yet he doesn’t in any way distinguish their beliefs, leading the reader to surmise that what makes Pletka a neoconservative isn’t what she believes but where she works and who she is.

There’s a better way. Retire “neocon,” which is rarely used coherently, if it even can be anymore, and often leads commentators (sometimes unwittingly) into dangerous territory. Call the people who want America to dominate the world militarily without the constraints of international institutions and international law “imperialists.” Yes, the term has negative connotations, but what distinguishes people like Kristol and Abrams from those liberals who also support military force in places like Bosnia and Syria is precisely the former’s open scorn for the idea that America should be bound by rules that other nations help craft. Liberal interventionists trace their intellectual ancestry to Woodrow Wilson, who tried to turn international affairs into a sphere regulated by law. Neocons scorn Wilson and revere Theodore Roosevelt, who believed, at least for part of his career, in unfettered American power.

Roosevelt is commonly called an imperialist. And some of his neocon disciples have embraced the term too. After 9/11, Max Boot argued in The Weekly Standard that the United States should “embrace its imperial role.” Niall Ferguson, who would be ranked among the world’s most prominent neoconservatives if he hadn’t been born a Christian in Scotland, has written an entire book arguing that America is an empire and should be a better one.

If people like Kristol and Abrams think “imperialist” undersells their commitment to universal ideals, they can call themselves “democratic imperialists,” thus distinguishing themselves from “realist imperialists” like Krauthammer and Bolton. This typology also offers a comfortable niche for Ron and Rand Paul, who, although commonly called isolationists, don’t want to isolate America from international commerce. A better term for them is “anti-imperialist,” or what Walter Russell Mead has called “Jeffersonian,” as their core belief is that America’s transformation from a republic into an empire imperils freedom at home.

I don’t know whether the “neocons” themselves will embrace this new terminology. But liberals should. It’s fine to criticize our ideological adversaries as long as it’s for what they believe. Just not for who they are.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 02:44 PM   #46
Prison Bitch Prison Bitch is online now
The Bitch is back
 
Prison Bitch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lees summit
Casino cash: $11349
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan View Post
I thought bazingas were tits.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bazinga
Posts: 14,097
Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 02:45 PM   #47
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
Just Wiki Bill Kristol. Find out which issues you agree on (all) and which you dont' (none). Then invent your own word for folks like you. Call it, "Bazingas". Then that way you won't feel bad being called a NeoCon because you and Kristol are now "Bazingas."


Might make you feel better about yourself.
So someone has to agree with Bill Kristol on everything to be a neocon? Is that your final definition? Does that mean that when he supported John McCain in the 2008 primaries and I supported Mitt Romney that I wasn't a neocon?
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 02:46 PM   #48
Brainiac Brainiac is offline
Veteran
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lenexa, KS
Casino cash: $6494
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
You, more than anyone, need to read that article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Nope. I skimmed it—that's enough. It's a rinse and repeat. Beinart is one of them who endlessly encourages the Democrats to adopt a more "muscular" foreign policy. So you need to read mine.
LOL.

BEP won't take the time to read a 2,400 word article, yet she feels compelled to comment about it. She can't say exactly what is wrong in the article that she didn't read, so her response is to tell Pat to read Ron Paul's 7,000 word speech.

So much for critical thinking.
Posts: 4,311
Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 03:33 PM   #49
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainiac View Post
LOL.

BEP won't take the time to read a 2,400 word article, yet she feels compelled to comment about it. She can't say exactly what is wrong in the article that she didn't read, so her response is to tell Pat to read Ron Paul's 7,000 word speech.

So much for critical thinking.
I said I skimmed it for key points. I know who the author has written for already. So no need. Did you read that I posted it's a rinse and repeat?

Meanwhile, you insist one priest as the authority of RCC doctrine despite it being clarified to you by others.

Pot calling Kettle.
__________________
Posts: 57,685
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 03:36 PM   #50
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9851
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
So someone has to agree with Bill Kristol on everything to be a neocon?

No

But consistently posting about American exceptionalism, and being a force for good in the world via our military (even when we're doing something other than fighting fascism or communism) and insisting how important it is to project American power, especially the military kind, around the world as if our way is right for all peoples....well then that puts someone in that camp instantly.

Then add in being a supply-sider which is just a Keynesian with a tax cut on top; insisting that trying to implement conservative policies is impractical, supporting the evisceration of the 4th Amendment all on the domestic side...well that puts one even more into NeoCon territory—past 50% at a bare minimum.

Admiration for Dick Cheney is another but that fits all I posted in the first paragraph.
Don't forget Stossel ain't a full libertarian either, he's saying getting worked up about NSA spying is not to be concerned about. He's a Neo Libertarian. He doesn't really criticize the core of the state since he feels that Vietnam and even Bosnia were on the whole good things. Otherwise, he wouldn't be on FOX News.
__________________

Last edited by BucEyedPea; 06-12-2013 at 03:43 PM..
Posts: 57,685
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 03:38 PM   #51
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
Just Wiki Bill Kristol. Find out which issues you agree on (all) and which you dont' (none). Then invent your own word for folks like you. Call it, "Bazingas". Then that way you won't feel bad being called a NeoCon because you and Kristol are now "Bazingas."


Might make you feel better about yourself.
Okay Sheldon! Unless, this is really a prank!
__________________
Posts: 57,685
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 03:41 PM   #52
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
No

But consistently posting about American exceptionalism, and being a force for good in the world via our military (even when we're doing something other than fighting fascism or communism) and insisting how important it is to project American power, especially the military kind, around the world as if our way is right for all peoples....well then that puts someone in that camp instantly.
That's not bad. Like Reagan.

Can we agree that people who fit that description can have widely different views on domestic policy and that therefore, domestic policy doesn't really have anything to do with whether a person is a neocon or not? Likewise with the person's ethnicity/religiousity and whether or not he's ever been a dyed in the wool liberal?
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 03:45 PM   #53
HonestChieffan HonestChieffan is online now
Country Santa Year Around
 
HonestChieffan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the Country in MO
Casino cash: $8229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post

Bazinga!


Or perhaps neoBazingas
__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

Come home to Jesus Dave. Come home.
Posts: 28,714
HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.HonestChieffan is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 03:53 PM   #54
Prison Bitch Prison Bitch is online now
The Bitch is back
 
Prison Bitch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lees summit
Casino cash: $11349
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
No

But consistently posting about American exceptionalism, and being a force for good in the world via our military (even when we're doing something other than fighting fascism or communism) and insisting how important it is to project American power, especially the military kind, around the world as if our way is right for all peoples....well then that puts someone in that camp instantly.

Then add in being a supply-sider which is just a Keynesian with a tax cut on top; insisting that trying to implement conservative policies is impractical, supporting the evisceration of the 4th Amendment all on the domestic side...well that puts one even more into NeoCon territory—past 50% at a bare minimum.

All true. You forgot to add that Kristol and Patteu loooooove their gays and their illegal immigrants.
Posts: 14,097
Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.Prison Bitch threw an interception on a screen pass.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 04:23 PM   #55
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9851
Okay, now that I'm back, I have some time to search past posts on what is a NeoCon.
This is one source where I learned about them with the first being The Christian Science Monitor which no longer has their own multi-page study of what they believe and who they are:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...9&postcount=97
__________________
Posts: 57,685
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 04:25 PM   #56
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $7588
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
I'm a Pleistocon... I think she qualifies as a Pachycephalocon.
Seriously? No one bothered to look this up? Why do I even bother!
Posts: 14,797
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 04:31 PM   #57
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9851
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
That's not bad. Like Reagan.
I see you're going to rinse and repeat old arguments done ad nauseum with this statement.

No, that's not fair to include Reagan, who was actually in the foreign policy Realist camp. Reagan was fighting Communism in the Cold War who had a vast military empire and major weapons of mass destruction. The Cold War advocates included NeoCons and real Conservatives combined. RR went up against the NCs who criticized him. You ought to know, you claim you read is autobiography. Furthermore, he, as well as Thatcher was helped by a defecting Soviet Spy who became a double agent delivering quite a blow to the Soviets but which allowed him to soften some of his rhetoric toward them because as it turns out they were just as scared of us starting a nuclear attack as were of them. I think this helped prevent a major war.

Quote:
Can we agree that people who fit that description can have widely different views on domestic policy and that therefore, domestic policy doesn't really have anything to do with whether a person is a neocon or not? Likewise with the person's ethnicity/religiousity and whether or not he's ever been a dyed in the wool liberal?
No some domestic policy does apply, although FP is the main delineating factor. It accounts for 50% today. So even if one is in agreement with just some of their domestic policy, it would still be over 50% putting them in NeoCon territory. Sure it's a matter of degree here.

Again, I use definition one which are the originals who were former communists or leftists who were hawks on FP. The former conservatives, have just drunk their Kool Aid and there is the religious conservatives who ally with them on FP. Kristol and The Kraut still criticize conservatives for not supporting the idea of safety nets etc. The Kraut was Mondale's speechwriter for gosh sakes.
__________________
Posts: 57,685
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 04:36 PM   #58
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9851
I see no one looked at my link from a previous thread:

So here goes an extensive list of what they believe in:
•They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
•They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so. [since before 9/11 I might add. Read "Clean Break"]
•They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.[this is the same moral code as the communists]
•They express no opposition to the welfare state.
•They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
•They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.[like the communists]
•They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
•They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
•They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
•They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
•They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate. [using force to spread democracy; nation building]
• Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country. [ like the Soviets only not with Soviet values totally; with socialist democracies]
• 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
•They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
•They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
•They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party. [some allegedly are actually members of the Likud party, who are hardliners]
Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.
__________________
Posts: 57,685
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 06:02 PM   #59
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
All true. You forgot to add that Kristol and Patteu loooooove their gays and their illegal immigrants.
What's the neocon position on gays and illegal immigrants?
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 06:30 PM   #60
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
OK, I'm going to grade myself on your checklist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
So here goes an extensive list of what they believe in:
•They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
NO
•They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so. [since before 9/11 I might add. Read "Clean Break"]
I'll give myself a very weak YES here, but only because I'm willing to see the map redrawn if that's what it takes to help those in the middle east throw off the oppression of their most radical elements.
•They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
I'll have to go with NO here because there are plenty of desired ends that wouldn't lead me to support preemptive war. Under some limited conditions, I could support preemptive war though.
•They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.[this is the same moral code as the communists]
Again I'm giving myself a NO because in most circumstances I wouldn't agree with this. In a few, though, I would.
•They express no opposition to the welfare state.
This one is a clear NO
•They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
I wouldn't call it an empire and it certainly wouldn't fit the traditional definition, but I'm in favor of global American influence so I'll give myself a YES.
•They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.[like the communists]
And like every other state that has ever survived, including our own USA, YES.
•They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
A powerful military, yes. A powerful federal government in general, NO
•They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
YES
•They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
It's often ill-advised, but certainly not always. NO
•They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
I barely even know who he is. NO
•They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate. [using force to spread democracy; nation building]
I don't care about the spread of democracy or nation building unless one or bother is important to advance American interests. NO
• Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country. [ like the Soviets only not with Soviet values totally; with socialist democracies]
NO It should only be used in defense of our country. I'm not even sure it should be used in terrible humanitarian situations, but I'm willing to entertain exceptions in those cases on the theory that the bad will we would generate by standing by could damage our interests at some point in the future.
• 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
NO I don't blame 9/11 on a lack of foreign entanglements.
•They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
NO I like libertarians. I am a libertarian to a large degree.
•They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
YES but only the necessary ones.
•They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party. [some allegedly are actually members of the Likud party, who are hardliners]
NO
Hmmm. 5 yes and 12 no. Does that mean I'm not a neocon or is this something like the one drop rule?
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:25 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.