Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,495,426 times
Reputation: 2038
Advertisements
Even though I should have pointed out a difference between Neo Conservatism and Conservatism, I think reality says that a conservative will embrace NeoConservative ideas before liberal ideas.
Even though I should have pointed out a difference between Neo Conservatism and Conservatism, I think reality says that a conservative will embrace NeoConservative ideas before liberal ideas.
Then that "conservative" isn't a conservative, so it's a moot point. They're just progressives of a different color.
Even though I should have pointed out a difference between Neo Conservatism and Conservatism, I think reality says that a conservative will embrace NeoConservative ideas before liberal ideas.
Fear is a major motivating factor. It was the same as during the Cold War. With support for the war so low, only die hard Republicans still support it. They care more for party than for country. They are scared of the liberals and the terrorists.
Even though I should have pointed out a difference between Neo Conservatism and Conservatism, I think reality says that a conservative will embrace NeoConservative ideas before liberal ideas.
actually, a real conservative is much more liberal than most liberal. I believe in no government interference in anyones personal life.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,495,426 times
Reputation: 2038
Quote:
Originally Posted by paperhouse
Reagan of 1964 and Reagan of 1984 were two totally different people. The neocon's influence on him was overwhelming. He was literally scared to death of the Soviets because of reports produced by people like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Had we gotten the Reagan of 1964, we would have a different country today, better, I think.
I would agree with that, but for some reason, Rumsfeld, Cheney and all, were not psychos back then in 1984, like they are now. As much as I hate to say it, Reagans presidency was one of the better ones in my lifetime, neutrally speaking (still not as good as Clinton's). Clinton was a centerist and that is why he was successful. My point being, again, is that neo conservatism these last 8 years has just been miserable for the USA, but way too many people, seem content with it and continuing it by voting for McCain. McCain may have been a maverick in 2000, not anymore though.
An additional point, even though I did not care for Reagan at all (but he's a saint compared to W), I will admit and he was a border line neocon, that America mostly enjoyed peace and prosperity under his watch.
Neoconservatives are NOT conservatives... they are basically war-mongering liberals pretending to be conservatives... that's why I hate liberals... they think everybody should be FORCED to "think" like they do... look at communism, fascism, and socialism, its one of their tenets.. True conservatism is about you thinking whatever you want to think about... gee, wouldn't that be ideal? A free-thinking society? Reagan was not a good president, if you follow our nation's deficit, it has GREATLY increased every year when Reagan took office... he started the whole "deficit" and it has now amount to almost 10 Trillion dollars... Even now as we owe so much money to China and such, what are we doing? McCain suggest we get MORE deficit (neocon thinking)... and Obama? He wants to increase the deficit as well... only true conservatives think otherwise, that is.. to pay DOWN the deficit....even Bill Clinton INCREASED the deficit by a couple trillion dollars but at least he balanced the budget, however people tend to ignore that he DID increased the federal deficit... Prosperity during the Clinton years as well as the previous years means only one thing... MISERY is to follow... the older generation are getting their prosperity but at the cost of their grandchildren doomed to misery... that is NOT fair but neoconservatives and liberals aren't doing anything significant to change that because they are STILL asking for more handouts from the Chinese...
To me TODAY'S liberalism is more of a "social liberalism" AKA socialism... they are asking for handouts all the time and for anything... Obama is already suggesting we use taxpayers money to pay into other people's retirement plans?? Excuse me? People are demanding taxpayers money be used to pay for healthcare costs... and the lists keeps growing... 10 trillion in the hole and list is growing? To me there is a proverb... "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat forever."... Social liberalism is akin to the government fishing for the man so that he can eat forever, what happens when government can't fish for the man anymore? The government isn't teaching the man to fish, he is fishing for him. That's why socialist programs always fail. If you want to teach somebody then teach, don't DO it for him... Do not PAY for his health care responsibilities, do NOT pay for his retirement, that doesn't teach anything, that just makes people more dependent on the government... and that is a VERY bad thing... Do you see people being dependent on their parents forever? Its time to cut the cord...
Anyone that wants to know why the neoconservative movement, just like the liberal movement that spawned them, failed, download and watch the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares. You won't find conspiracy theories, just interviews of the neocons and their actions starting in the 1950s. These people are not conservatives. They are neoconservatives. That neo prefix makes a huge difference in what they believe.
And if you want to know about Conservatism (without the neo), read The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater (ghostwriter: L Brent Bozell Jr). You won't find many similarities in the two groups.
Quite possibly one of the best insights into neoconservatism out there right now. Great post Paper, and anyone who hasn't take the time to watch those three episodes, should.
You're right to a degree. The term "liberal" is thrown around a whole lot without really understanding what it means.
Conservative = liberal (in terms of social matters)
Conservative never means liberal in fiscal matters
I agree. What burns me about Liberals is their willingness to give the government absolute authority over our lives. I hate how misleading the titles are. Liberals are sort of 'hands off' in the 'social' sector, but are in favor of huge government programs. Conservatism means socially 'refined', but economic freedom.
This also confuses people because Republicans are an economic party, the social issues are just a side thing.
Anyways, I have no problem with our misguided 'Liberal' counterparts. I accept everyone, regardless of their political views. Also realize that the further to the right you get, you eventually end up on the Left - proof of such is the "Neo-Cons" who share a lot in common with Liberals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.