U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2006, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Bothell, Washington
454 posts, read 639,540 times
Reputation: 187

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nea1 View Post
illuminati wasnt that in Tomb Raider!?!?!? sorry had to ask.
Never saw Tomb Raider, so can't say for sure. Illuminati is probably the oldest surviving "they" conspiracy for who controls the government. "they" are a secret group that controls everything, and has done so for the better part of 100 years or more. Illuminati supporters are pretty wacky, right up there with 9-11ers, Grassy knollers, Lady di'hards, Katrinaites, Flat earthers... Oh, the list goes on and on. Proving once and for all that too many people have WAY too much free time on their hands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2006, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Colorado
10,017 posts, read 16,711,438 times
Reputation: 2091
Quote:
Originally Posted by the dufferz View Post
Never saw Tomb Raider, so can't say for sure. Illuminati is probably the oldest surviving "they" conspiracy for who controls the government. "they" are a secret group that controls everything, and has done so for the better part of 100 years or more. Illuminati supporters are pretty wacky, right up there with 9-11ers, Grassy knollers, Lady di'hards, Katrinaites, Flat earthers... Oh, the list goes on and on. Proving once and for all that too many people have WAY too much free time on their hands.
Thats about what they were in the movie as well. Wacky is right!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2006, 07:26 PM
 
Location: Tucson, AZ
1,696 posts, read 3,060,316 times
Reputation: 1535
Quote:
Originally Posted by the dufferz View Post

Whetever mess you see to be cleaned up is now in the hands of the democrats who have promised to deliver much. You seem to be focused on the idea that somehow these few neo-cons are in chaqrge of the US government regarless of who is actually in charge. Do I sense another conspiracy along the lines of the illuminati here?
That's no conspiracy- that's nothing more than a power-hungry executive branch claiming unitary powers that aren't rightfully theirs, with the complicity of Congress.

And that's the perfect recipe for "failure" that the neo-cons have up their sleeve. They are going to do their level best to convince everyone in 2 years that the fact that Iraq is still a mess is ALL the Democrats' fault, conveniently ignoring that it was themselves who started the whole train wreck in the first place. It'll be Karl Rove's parting gift to America. Of course, the Dems are so inept and cowed that they'll probably let the Republicans get away with this, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2006, 09:55 PM
 
421 posts, read 243,817 times
Reputation: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by movin'on View Post
No, I am really not, although I am well educated. I am not offended at all, as I am quite secure with who I am and the knowledge base I have, with regards to political affairs. And what scares me is I am more conservative than I'd care to admit these days, even though you most likely fancy yourself to be a conservative.

I was just on another board advocating for anti gun control and taking care of our own things within our borders, which is quite conservative.

The problem today, as I see it, is you have this faction of people who voted for W., who then think they are conservative, without realizing he has followed the NEOconservatives in their vision. That is the problem as I see it. What do you think? Just who are the neocons and do you even know them or what they stand for? Because that is who is running the show and, therefore, you most likely voted for "them" and you should know what they are all about. Do you agree? Your vote counts.

I really don't know who the neocons are either. I have seen very few out there to be honest. I consider myself a conservative before I consider myself a Republican. I tend to vote Republican because I do believe they are tougher on national security, anti-abortion, against gay marriage, I'm not for gun control, less government programs, lower taxes etc. I really don't think the Republicans out there today represent all of these things, but like I said I'm a conservative first Republican 2nd. I just haven't seen any of these types in Washington lately.

I would however support Guiliani only because I feel National Security is the issue of today. I'm not even sure why Guiliani is a Republican when his views lean left. I do feel confident he can handle our national security. It does bother me that he comes with personal baggage but I don't know who doesn't come with something. It's a gutt feeling more than anything I have for Guiliani. I could be very wrong. If Guiliani gets my vote it will be a one issue vote. The only other liberal I'd vote for would be Lieberman.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2006, 10:02 PM
 
421 posts, read 243,817 times
Reputation: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb919 View Post
First one off our dole- Israel. They have nukes, so why do they need our money to help defend themselves?

Dubya does have a lot on his plate, but honestly, so much of it is self-inflicted. I really don't think we could be much worse off. In fact, I think the worst is yet to come.
Israel has nukes and you see they are civilized enough not to use them. These people get threatened everday by that Iranian Kook too.

I don't think Dubya has brought everything on himself. I think crap just happened on his watch and all hell broke loose. I'm not saying the administration is perfect or even close to it but I really think they are doing the best they can. The left has continued to throw whatever they can at him. The left meaning the drive-by media, the Hollywood left, Michael Moore, whacko former Presidents, the NY Times and so on. Bush does not get a fair shake anywhere. Ok I know Fox News.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2006, 10:16 PM
 
421 posts, read 243,817 times
Reputation: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by dullnboring View Post
LOL! Hilarious. You've slipped up way too many times. I could always post the proof of your identity right here but I don't feel like going there at the moment.

I have to admit, I was in a bit of a pissy mood last night. I'm not sure if there's any sort of scientific proof of male PMS but if so, I was experiencing it last night. So whereas a veiled insult thrown my way as it was the other night would've normally slid off my back at any other time, I felt compelled to respond. I shouldn't have because it's pointless to get involved in any sort of messageboard drama. Ah well. What's done is done. I wasn't trying to start a mess or get anyone banned so forget I said anything.

This is true. Like I said, ever since you've re-registered under your new user name, you've been much more polite and cordial and have steered clear of the personal attacks.

Anyways, carry on folks. Sorry to interfere with the debate.


You must have had male PMS, I know that possible because my husband has it. How could you call me a1m sounds like a horrible person I'm sweet my username should be sweetie not sweattea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2006, 10:46 PM
 
4,247 posts, read 9,166,603 times
Reputation: 1452
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweattea View Post
I really don't know who the neocons are either. I have seen very few out there to be honest. I consider myself a conservative before I consider myself a Republican.
Well, you need to know who they are, as they run the show (unfortunately).

Quote:
Some basic questions answered.

What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region.

What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance.
How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists.
Yup, this pretty much sums it up. Again, their roots are in the FAR left. This doesn't make sense, intuitively, but it is true. That blurb I posted before about Neo Conned! is dead on.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2006, 10:54 PM
 
4,247 posts, read 9,166,603 times
Reputation: 1452
Oh, and just as a sidenote, this is the real reason I could no longer work at that job for that trustee for the AEI. He was nice enough, but it went against everything in my spirit to do so. And just to identify these neocons for who they are...they are **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Irving Krisol, and others of interest. I will post more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2006, 12:58 AM
 
Location: Bothell, Washington
454 posts, read 639,540 times
Reputation: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by movin'on View Post
Well, you need to know who they are, as they run the show (unfortunately).



Yup, this pretty much sums it up. Again, their roots are in the FAR left. This doesn't make sense, intuitively, but it is true. That blurb I posted before about Neo Conned! is dead on.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html (broken link)
I guess we can add Bill Clinton to the list of Neo-con's since he was the one who called for regime change in Iraq - oops the article did not mention that.

No surprise that Isreal is behind this. They are behind everything that is evil.

Reagan Republicans are not "neocons". They are primarily southern democrats
who felt, like Reagan, that the democrat party left them.

The bottom line of the article says that neo-cons "envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats"

and: "Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained"

Oh how bloody aweful! They should all be put in prison!

So please, everyone who reads this post, please read the article that movin'on wants us to read. on a scale of 1-10 let see where we all are on the neocon scale. I am a conservative, I put their ideas somewhere around a 9.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2006, 01:23 AM
 
4,247 posts, read 9,166,603 times
Reputation: 1452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimbercuddles View Post
Okay, most of the time I can follow...but now the ditzy blonde is in a tizzy. Would someone please explain to me the difference between a neo-con and a conservative?

My next question is: What specifically qualifies President Bush as a neo-con, Movin'on? I am extremely curious and interested.

Thank you for any answers in advance!!
Well, Bush could never be classified as a neocon, but strongly influened by neocons. If you read the whole speech by Ron Paul, you will have a strong sense of who they are. Nonethelss, I will post this for you...

Here you go and I must hit the sack, as I have training tomorrow...

Quote:
Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; **** Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

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.

They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

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.

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 American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

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.
And the whole speech can be found here. Take 10 minutes out of your life to read it, please.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top