|New Civilization News: Kerry is making it very tough....|
38 comments7 Sep 2004 @ 06:50 by vaxen : Kerry...
is NO exit ticket! Wake up! Kerry is fullfilling the job description that he was HIRED to fill! They are all ONE party! You are being played like a violin! Do not vote for any of these pigs! If you want to really make some stink vote the goddamned Congress out! Or better yet find out who the F**K really pulls these TRAITORS strings! You are being PROGRAMMED! It is called Psy-Ops! Psychological Operations! Black Propaganda! It's all BULL:SHIT! All of it!
7 Sep 2004 @ 15:29 by Quinty @18.104.22.168 : The B... S...!
Well, that was an emphatic opinion....
7 Sep 2004 @ 15:33 by spells : wake up!
It's not an opinion, it is fact!
7 Sep 2004 @ 18:21 by Quinty @22.214.171.124 : Hollering and screaming
To slum a bit, or enter into some deep muck, I just finished listening to some righwing talk radio. I suppose there folks who find hollering and screaming entertaining. Insults, accusations, vindective, sneers, shouts, screeches, bellowing, yaps, snarls, hollers, belches, and all kinds of snipes, and verbal outbursts.
I may agree with some of what you say, even much of it: but it's not anything anybody could ever hear through all this noise.
7 Sep 2004 @ 22:54 by spells : Truth and honesty
Actually I know that people only need to be honest and respect the Truth. If that doesn't happen, then what follows is karma, cause and effect, pure and simple.
7 Sep 2004 @ 23:38 by spells : Cause and effect is the law of karma...
I am sorry to say it IS happening on your watch, no matter who wins...there is really only one political party...corporations. Vote all you like, but I have yet to see a corrupt system changed within that corrupt system.
8 Sep 2004 @ 00:09 by E_johnson @126.96.36.199 : Cause and effect and Karma
My point exactly, pure and simple:
Not voting in the coming presidential election would make me feel as personally responsible for a Bush victory and the direction he will take the world and this country as if I had cast myself a vote for his re-election. This is a chance I will not take. Not on my watch.
Thank you, spells.
8 Sep 2004 @ 01:24 by E_Johnson @188.8.131.52 : Truth and honesty
Spells? Why did your second comment [World Karma, personal karma] pop up above my response to your first comment [Truth and honesty]? I don't really mind, other than the fact that it makes our exchange seems a little bit disjointed.
Anyway, spells, I am not putting you on trial for not voting, I realize that my comment above (the longer one) conveys that impression and I apologize. You say you try to "be honest and respect YOUR truth" and I respect that. (I say YOUR truth---I dont mean it pejoratively---because I believe that more often than not our perception of truth is relative. I do not claim to have a monopoly on Truth - do you?) I also believe that things are more complex than people make them to be:
Corporations and their influence on the media and on politics are definitely a problem, but saying that this means there is really only one political party is an oversimplification. So is saying that a corrupt system doesn't change from the inside - compare the 50's to our era - it's a tribute to all the activists of the past, great and small (some of which fought for that very same right to vote, we now take for granted) that things CAN, and have changed---and that there are times when it is important to make a stand and say NO (which is the reason why I will be voting against Bush.) There are changes and changes however, and I grant you that the kind of changes most people talk about when they think of a new civilization will not come from the inside. This is why modern activism directs its focus BOTH inside and outside the system (one doesnt preclude the other). Changes are happening everywhere, spells. There are happening ecologically all over the planet and socially (in term of information and human interaction) and scientifically in so many different sectors of human experience and so fast that there is no telling what the future will be like---or if well have a future. Changes can take many forms, they can take place from the outside in a violent or quiet revolution, or they may take place hand in hand from the outside AND the inside simultaneously---this is what conscious evolution is all about.
8 Sep 2004 @ 04:10 by James Weems @184.108.40.206 : Kerry is making it very tough....
I don't know, Paul. Maybe there is nothing Kerry can do. Maybe the majority of the people really want it, the New American Century, and if that's what they really want, everything else is just rationalization. 'They are playing a game, they are playing at not playing a game" but they have already made up their mind. "It's the PNAC, stupid," Pride and Nationalism. Come on, who are we kidding here? This election is not a referendum about Bush's performance. It's not a referendum about Kerry. It's about pluralism vs. unilateralism. It's about supremacism. It's a referendum about the New American Century:
Do you support George W. Bush's "vision," (the general vision crafted in the Project for the New American Century)?
This is certainly the way Bush has been framing the debate. And Monday's pool appears to indicate that overwhelmingly the answer is Yes (thats what happened.) People won't say that, of course, they'll say what my neighbour says, that the "American people seems to trust Bush" and that he doesn't know what to make of "that other guy," or they'll just repeat whatever appropriate PC soundbite they have been fed. Kerry can try to demonstrate that he is not weak on foreign policy and that he is not a "girlie man" or that there are other issues (like the economy) that the debate should be about, or that Bush "mislead" us into Iraq (people don't care, and many approve and think that no matter what Bush did, he did it for the right reasons and for the greater good - this is the tell tale sign of what is really going on here, the absence of national outrage, people are not stupid, they "know" what Bush did and they secretely approve.) Bottom line, if people want the New American Century, and if they have decided that this is what they want this election to be about, Bush is their candidate, not Kerry, and there is nothing that Kerry can do about it.
So maybe, this election is not a referendum about Bush or about Kerry, after all, maybe its just a referendum about America.
8 Sep 2004 @ 18:44 by Quinty @220.127.116.11 : The New American Century?
Is this election a referendum on America?
It may very well be, and in the manner you describe. But I wonder. Do most Americans even know what PNAC is? I somehow doubt it, and I wonder how many Americans relate Bushs policies to the Neocons?
For a while there, strangely, the Neocons were refusing to even admit that they existed. And there was a flap in the media over this. Somehow it all became mixed up with "anti-Semitism." And guys like Pearl and Fythe objected to using that word, Neocon.
It's very hard to generalize about the American people. Look at this web sight? All kinds of opinions appear here. I think that a majority of the Americans who back Bush in his foreign policy believe in his bill of goods. That the war in Iraq actually is an important component in the "war on terror." And that when Bush says he would defend the American people before taking "the word of a mad man" they believe him.
Would there be anything inconsistent about this in also believing we are the greatest country in the world? No. Certainly not. Would these backers of Bush disagree with PNAC's projects? Probably not. For the greatest country in the world has a right to rule and lead. In that way you, James, probably are right. We may not have really wanted it, they would say, but having been forced into it, into establishing order in the Middle East and the rest of the world, no one would be better at doing it than the United States. And yes, they would say, we have a right to "preemptively" strike out at our enemies, those who would harm us.
Bush has brought us this foggy violent world we now live in. The average American in a swing state who votes for him may not know about PNAC or Leo Strauss, the spiritual father of the Neocons, but when it comes to America being Number One, that they can easily understand.
My question to Kerry: How far do you agree with this? Do you support the American empire? Are you merely going to carry on if you should be elected? Will you move in the same direction and strengthen the empire?
As many war protesters have already said, if Kerry wins our work will have only just begun. Well, let's surely hope not. It might take some convincing, but the American people, if the reality is defined for them, may not want to move in this direction. And, for that matter, most polls reveal that a majority of Americans do not want an American empire.
8 Sep 2004 @ 22:47 by Emily Vonnessa @18.104.22.168 : Are we number one?
I agree with Quinty that one must be careful about "generalizing about the American people" and about humanity in general. It's Dostoyevsky, I think, who said something about Man (he meant man and woman) being like the meandering of a river, it could change from meanness to goodness and from narrow-mindedness to broadmindedness, and vice-versa (only, he said it a lot better than that, lol, I don't have the original quote with me.) His point was that it made it futile to pronounce oneself one way or another and try to prejudge anyone. I know it makes me sound a bit naive but there is always a part of me that hope (sometimes against reason) that people's better nature will prevail in the end, but as Dostoyevsky observed, the opposite also does take place.
The following is a 1997 Sermon by Rev. Dr. Robert M. Bowman (Presiding Bishop, United Catholic Church) and it's, well, a bit preachy (what do you expect, lol, that's why it's called a sermon, right?) and a bit dated in places (the speaker also does stretch things a bit - so take it with a grain of salt) but its spirit is true and most of it remains relevant today and so is the question it leads to, which goes to show how little things have changed in the past few years - the piece predates 9-11 and the "liberation" of Iraq:
"Weve been the strongest nation in the world since sometime in World War II. Now, were the worlds sole remaining superpower. Our military could take on all the other nations of the world, simultaneously, and win. Our defense budget is almost as much as all the rest of the world combined. Theres absolutely no question. Were number one.
Among all industrialized nations, were number one in child poverty, number one in the gap between rich and poor, number one in unimmunized children, number one in teen pregnancy, number one in deaths by gunfire, number one in poverty among the elderly, number one in citizens without medical coverage, number one in promoting instability, insurrection, tyranny, torture, terrorislm, and murder around the world through the Central Intelligence Agency. (Happy 50th birthday, CIA.) And number one in the percentage of our population in prison. We incarcerate a larger portion of our black population than South Africa did at the height of Apartheid.
But there are things in which were not Number One. We were last to agree to a nuclear test ban. We are the last holdout to the Law of the Sea Treaty. Out of 185 countries, the United States and Somalia are the last ones yet to sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would restrict child labor, the use of children as soldiers, and other abuses. And we are the last industrialized nation yet to provide prenatal care to pregnant women, free day care to working mothers, free preventive medicine and immunizations for infants, and a host of other marks of a civilized society. Now the civilized nations of the world, spurred on by the late Princess Diana, have finally agreed to a treaty banning the immoral, indiscriminate horror of anti-personnel land mines. And once again, our country is Number One. We are the first and only country (so far) to refuse to sign the treaty.
The question for us as a nation, as a community, as a church, and as individuals is this:
Are we Number One in the things that matter?"
9 Sep 2004 @ 17:04 by Quinty @22.214.171.124 : Number One
I have a general observation: those who damn the human race damn themselves, for they say there is no good in their own hearts and souls. Anyone of us who desires to be a decent human being, which, I think, is the great majority, then must know that this desire is widely shared. For the good can not exist only in our own hearts and souls. If we have that desire others must have it too. Though we may not always agree on what form it should take.
The statistics Emily brings up are, I think, still true, though they're a few years old. Yes, we should be more descriminate about what we are Number One in, not only for the world's, but for our own good.
10 Sep 2004 @ 01:06 by James Weems @126.96.36.199 : The Human Heart
When my sistah Emily ("the student of Life") - oh so innocently - drops names, my experience is that it's never quite entirely as gratuitous or as innocent as it appears. So I did try to find the source of the quote, and failed, but Dostoyevsky's Idiot looks like a likely candidate. The main character is portrayed as the symbol of a child-like innocence. He genuinely wants everyone to live in harmony and love. However, the falseness, politics and backstabbing of the world of Russian middle-nobility will have none of that. Yup, seems pretty relevant to me.
That said, I support Quinty's statement (comment above) about the Human heart, just as a matter of general principles.
"Ethically, we ask: Is it human nature to do good things . . . bad things? How do we define good and bad? What is it to be greedy, selfish, altruistic, cooperative?"
"As we evolve we ask ourselves: What cannot be changed? What can be changed, and, should we? Who am I? Who are you? Where have we come from? Where are we going? Our answers often lead to better questions. We are the Keepers of Questions. It is our ethically sacred task."
(Lois kellerman: Human Nature: An Ethical Culture Quest)
Thank you Quinty. Thank you Emily. Good thread here. Sure does give one a lot to think about.
10 Sep 2004 @ 02:03 by istvan : Good to read these discussions.
It may be tat it is becoming more popular at this website to talk about more of her-and- now happenings in the fields of politics and social movements that are happening locally and globally..
Yes for those of you who have to make a choice betvean those thwo aberrations of intelligence, have my full symphaty.
I posted something in my newslog some time ago that may be intresting here.[ [link] ]
10 Sep 2004 @ 03:14 by b : Can you please name
one person in government, publicly called a neocon who has said, "I am a neocon."
Where is neocon headquarters?
Who is the head, chief, neocon?
No Long Pastes Please. Just answer the questions if you can.
10 Sep 2004 @ 18:59 by Quinty @188.8.131.52 : Who are the Neocons?
A fair enough question. But one not simple to easily and quickly answer. There've been several books written on the movement, including "The Rise of the Vulcans, " by James Mann. He offers an objective, nonpartisan account of how the neoconservative movement came about.
Many are disinchanted liberals or Democrats who believe the US should have a strong and aggressive foreign policy. That the US is the most powerful country in the world and should exercise its power to advance its ideals and interests, including hegemony in the Middle East. They were clammoring for a war in Iraq long before 9/11 which is why they leapt upon the ruse of "the war on terrorism" to finally invade Iraq, even though Saddam was "contained." Mistakenly, they believed it would be an easy war, and, according to Paul Wolfowitz, democracy would spread from Iraq to other Arabic states. There's much more: see Irving Kristol's summary below, if you are interested.
William Kristol, Irving's son, is considered one of the leading intellectuals in the movement, and he's written a great deal about it too. For a capsule summary of the senior Kristol's description of neoconservatism go to this site: The Neoconservative Persuasion. William Kristol also edits one of their basic publications, The Weekly Standard.
According to Mann George Bush became acquainted with the Neocons at his father's home in Kennebunkport. And Condoleeza Rice took him in hand. Now several Neocons (and there are those among them who don't like the term) have important positions in the Bush administration. Including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Fythe, and many more. Many of them belong to the American Enterprise Institute and PNAC is one of their intellectual projects. Many of the papers and reports they produce can be found there.
There's much more, but I hope this can help get you off the ground on the subject.
Here some interesting quotes from The Christian Science Monitor if you're curious about their views of the US in the world.
11 Sep 2004 @ 01:32 by b : Thequestions don't get answered because
there are no neocons. That is a French psyops invention and that is who paid Kristol to publish this nonsense. If you dispute it answer the above questions.
11 Sep 2004 @ 16:22 by Quinty @184.108.40.206 : Huh?
The French did what?
Irving and William Kristol are in who's pay?
There are no Neocons, or Vulcans, as they called themselves according to Mann?
Well, that's one way of dealing with reality. Isn't it. Blame the French!
12 Sep 2004 @ 01:28 by b : No worries Quinty
The entire editorial staff of Slate magazine on line could not answer the three questions about neocons.
12 Sep 2004 @ 06:49 by Emily Vonnessa @220.127.116.11 : Hey, I remember that one from my class
It's called Plurium Interrogationum, isn't it? lol - Mm, I wonder if I can get extra credit for that?
This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic) answer to a complex question (e.g.: "Are higher taxes an impediment to business or not? Yes or no?")
You are taking b too seriously here, Quinty, I think he's just having some fun at your expense.
"One of the most common fallacies of presumption is this: asking a question in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some conclusion buried in that question. The question itself is likely to be rhetorical, no answer being genuinely sought. But putting the question seriously, thereby introducing its presupposition surreptitiously, often achieves the questioner's purpose fallaciously."
(from Introduction to Logic , 11th edition, by Copi and Cohen)
12 Sep 2004 @ 07:15 by E_johnson @18.104.22.168 : Leo-cons
Why, b, you are making it sound like "neo-con" is a dirty word.
1. Is there, yes or no, an American conservative think tank called Project for the New American Century (PNAC) whose admited goal is to promote "American global leadership"?
2. Do you, yes or no, recognize the following names (or at least some of them):
- Dick Cheney, Vice President, and former CEO of Halliburton Petroleum;
- Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief assistant to Dick Cheney;
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense;
- Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of Defense;
- Elliot Abrams, senior member of the National Security Council, who pled guilty to the charge of lying to Congress in the Iran/Contra scandal;
- Norman Podhoretz, a writer who described the PNAC mission and the war on Iraq as, "A process of the reformation and modernization of Islam;"
- Richard Perle, formerly of the Defense Policy Board
- Bill Bennett, whom youve surely met if youve been to Vegas recently (Co-director of Empower America, distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation and speech writer for the President)
3. Are, yes or no, the signatures of the people above (all of whom occupy key positions within the G. W. Bush's administration) on the PNAC Statement of Principles? Are they, yes or no, among those who signed on with the Project for a New American Century in 1997, who founded the Project, and who stand by its ideologies?
Call them neo-cons or anything you like, b, or maybe Leo-cons (from political philosopher Leo Strauss) would be a better term (it means the same), and no, (paraphrasing your question) I cant think of "one person in government, publicly called a Leo-con who has said, 'I am a Leo-con'". Yet, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and others who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration make no secret of their admiration for the ideas of Leo Strauss whose philosophy they embrace. His disciples include 'Weekly Standard' editor William Kristol, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, a number of senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and Gary Schmitt, the director of the influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which is chaired by Kristol.
Leo Strauss was a great believer in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics. Public support for the Iraq war rested on lies about Iraq posing an imminent threat to the United States the business about weapons of mass destruction and a fictitious alliance between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime. Now that the lies have been exposed, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the war party are denying that these were the real reasons for the war.
So what were the real reasons? Reorganizing the balance of power in the Middle East? Expanding American hegemony in the Arab world? Possibly. But these reasons would not have been sufficient in themselves, at the time, to mobilize the people support for the war and they knew it.
Leo Strauss also believed that societies should be hierarchical, divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow.
Thank you for asking, b.
12 Sep 2004 @ 08:43 by vibrani : Clinton on the war in Iraq and terrorism
Here is a speech Clinton made about 9/11 and terrorism and the war with Iraq:http://www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/012402-sp-islam.htm and here
and all his speeches online can be found here [link]
So we've got to win this fight we're in, I support it. I support it. It's important to break this network. The al-Qaeda network is by far the most well financed, well-organized, well-connected, boldest leadership group practicing terrorism in the world. There's a man here with me tonight who was on the phone with me, I was in Australia when this happened, he was in the southern part of Manhattan Island, he talked me through the second airline hitting the World Trade Center, and the minute it happened I told him, "I don't believe anybody but bin Laden could've done this." So, is it important to fight it? Yes, it is. Will they retaliate? If we don't do it, they'll retaliate. At least now they have to wake up every day and think about how they're going to see the sun go down at night. And I think that's important. Now, having said that, I do not believe it is enough for us to win the fight we're in. We have to recognize that the world has some significant problems which breed potential terrorists. And we are in a position to do something about it. We, the United States, we Canada, we, the wealthy countries of the world.
12 Sep 2004 @ 19:11 by Quinty @22.214.171.124 : Stuffing the Neocons into pigeon holes
You're probably right, Emily, though b's game is a little odd. To what end? Is it just a silly exercise of "he he ha ha?"
E Johnson did such a good job of describing the Neocons, or Leocons, that I hesitate to try to add. But b wants them to fit into the rigid boxes he desires or else they won't exist. And I'd hate to see that happen. So let's quickly try.
Is there "one person in government, publicly called a neocon who has said, 'I am a neocon.' "
Maybe? Who knows? Have you ever heard a poodle tell you he is a poodle? That poodles are unable to speak French, though, has never been proof of their non-existence. Though, true, poodles, if they only knew it, could perhaps deeply resent the label. They might prefer to be called "noodles."
"Where is neocon headquarters?"
They have no headquarters. Maybe they meet for lunch or dinner from time to time. Does PNAC occupy a building somewhere? I don't know. But if they have offices then they must at least pass each other in the hall. I'm not familiar with any known sighting where they all appeared. Maybe they meet at book signings or in fashionable Washington restaurants? Maybe on the shores of Kenebunkport? Is there a hunting season for Neocons? They're too ellusive, so probably not.
"Who is the head, chief, neocon?"
I'm afraid they don't have one. Does that mean they don't exist? Paul Wolfowitz is pretty influential. He's the guy, you know, who pushed the theary that if democracy was brought to Iraq it would spread throughtout the Middle East. Kind of like the Domino Theory. Even though William Kristol may be in the pay of the French he's also a prominent Neocon thinker. Though I don't think he likes that term anymore. So he might take your side. In that manner they can all vanish.
Since they are all in the pay of the French perhaps they are eating frogs legs together on a picnic blanket near the White House lawn. They may even be picking straws to chose who the top Neocon will be. This could be happening, b, at this very minute. Think of it: through osmosis you may be partaking in history!
I hope this has simplified your life for you, b.
12 Sep 2004 @ 20:03 by b : Ignorance is the Enemy of Intelligence
Know besters always use generalities and non specifics. When you don't know, you just don't know.
12 Sep 2004 @ 22:31 by Quinty @126.96.36.199 : B -
If you want to stuff a hippopotamus into your bathrub, then try. But perhaps the two don't belong together?
12 Sep 2004 @ 22:36 by Quinty @188.8.131.52 : One final comment
13 Sep 2004 @ 00:52 by E_johnson @184.108.40.206 : b, my friend,
you are too smart to post crap like this, so I'll have to believe that Emily is right and that you are just "having fun." Neo-conservatism is a persuasion or a philosophy, just like Capitalism, Pacifism, Empiricism or Pragmatism also are philosophies (or intellectual movements). Asking where is Pragmatism headquarters? Or who is the head, chief Pragmatist? Are non-sensical questions. You realize that, don't you? (Not to imply that neo-conservatists are pragmatists - it would be nice if they were, then maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, but as you yourself so rightly observed "Ignorance is the Enemy of Intelligence" - Pragmatism is drawing sensible policies based on solid intelligence. What the Bush administration did is quite the opposite, it cherry-picked and re-interpreted intelligence to make it fit into the mold of its ideologicaly based agenda.)
Inasmuch as specifics are concerned, I don't know what more you need:
1. I provided 8 names of influential "people in government" (7 more than you requested - there are more - as President Bush himself acknowledged in a speech at the AEI, 27/02/03, no fewer than 20 AEI people now form part of the Bush Administration)who signed on with the Project for a New American Century (their signature IS on the PNAC statement of principles - it's no big secret). They founded the Project, and they stand by its ideologies. I think that certainly is at least as good as them saying publicly "I am a neocon." (I am bending backward to honestly answer your question, here). Maybe you object to the terminology (I don'know, I am trying to understand) and maybe you would rather call them something else? That's fine. But we are just dealing with semantics then (like "invasion of Iraq" vs. "liberation of Iraq"), the name has changed but the product (the Straussian PNAC ideology) is the same. It's just a matter of packaging and marketing.
2. Where is neocon headquarters? Technically, AEI is their thinktank. So, if you must, you can look at it as their headquarters (on M and 17th streets - I hope this is "specific" enough for you). Its staff includes famous names such as Richard Perle, Irving Kristol (and, yes, Newt Gingrich too). The magazine Weekly Standard, the neoconservative bible, is published at the same address. But then again, George W. Bush's foreign policy team is so staffed with PNAc members that one may as well say that the Departement of Defense has become the de-facto neoconservative headquater. I leave it to your judgement (I report, you decide).
3. Who is the head chief neocon? Gee, b, you make it look like the AEI is run like the mafia, it isn't you know---at least, I hope so---it's more of a movement. But if you absolutely need a name, I guess Leo Strauss would be considered like the ideological Godfather of the movement.
You know, b, you are making it look like I am a conspiracy theorist or something and that there is no such a thing as the neoconservative movement, while in fact it's all pretty open and pretty much part of the political scene and really no big secret. This is Irving Kristol's (the horse's mouth)definition of neoconservatism: "one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy."
13 Sep 2004 @ 22:58 by b : EJohnson, I am not your friend
Neocons = an alliance of neonazis and communists. Sourced in France as a disinformation psyops campaign to cover French cooperating as running dog for the 56 Muslim nation conference bloc. Russia, part of the Franco German axis uses the disinformation network to reach into American academia to further the multiculturalism they founded after the fall of USSR and the marxist leninist dialect materialism became obselite. Money is also funneled via 56 Muslim bloc through the network to further American political adveturing by foreign antiAmerican and AntiAmericn American interests. Thus, you might say that the head neocon is Michail Gorbachov who after being ousted in the coup scenario took over the Communist International and renamed it the Green Party - a built in international political party. Yes, it is complex. The disinformation hides the true lie for foreign contributions to the downfall of USA. So you might say the neocon headquarters is in Moscow though it appears to look like Paris and certainly is not Washington D.C. Of all of the people in govt named as neocons, not one has stated publicaly that they are a neocon.
Quinty, I would like to call you friend and I love your art.
14 Sep 2004 @ 15:29 by E_johnson @220.127.116.11 : Joke all you like, b
"No-one has stated publicly that they are a neocons," yet, Irving Kristol, Distinguished Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea," credits the "current president and his administration" with reviving the faith. Under Mr. Bush it "began enjoying a second life," says Kristol.
Well, the "godfather" has spoken. And you may not want to argue with Kristol. Neoconservatives have ways and means of making you see The Truth: "The historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism," he writes in the Weekly Standard (the neoconservative Bible), is "to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy" - whatever that means.
All things considered I think it is a positive sign when people, like my humorous friend b, rush to defend President Bush from being "defiled" by the neoconservative label (this is maybe a sign that the tag, thankfully, is becoming an embarrassment to some). But rather than pretend that neoconservatism doesn't exist or deride it and try to joke it under the carpet as a "Gorbachov neonazis communist conspiracy" run by the Zarkons from planet Pluto, maybe b-plus (b deserves to be upgraded from a mere b to a b-plus for his creative effort), or maybe people who happen to have the President's ear, ought to invite G. W. Bush to keep some distance from the AEI, which obviously he doesn't (President George W. Bush Speaks at AEI's Annual Dinner: "Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm proud to be with the scholars, and the friends, and the supporters of the American Enterprise Institute. I want to thank you for overlooking my dress code violation. They were about to stop me at the door, but Irving Kristol said, "I know this guy, let him in.") Oh, but wait a minute, the people who so happen to have the President's ear ARE AEI members, many of them (President George W. Bush Speaks at AEI's Annual Dinner: "Kris, thank you for your very kind introduction, and thank you for your leadership. I see many distinguished guests here tonight--members of my Cabinet, members of Congress, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and so many respected writers and policy experts. I'm always happy to see your Senior Fellow, Dr. Lynne V. Cheney. Lynne is a wise and thoughtful commentator on history and culture, and a dear friend to Laura and me. I'm also familiar with the good work of her husband. You may remember him, the former director of my vice presidential search committee. Thank God Dick Cheney said yes.")
Oh, um, well, never mind then.
14 Sep 2004 @ 17:21 by Quinty @18.104.22.168 : b is a very funny guy
and I wouldn't tear my hair out over the outrageous things he says. I lost him somewhere there in Hitler's bunker. I recall seeing an interview with the guy who's president of PNAC on CSPAN a few months ago, and they presented the list of signatories to PNAC's statement of basic principles. Yes, it was a veritable Washington Who's Who. And among them the head of the DLC was also included. Now that's one to ponder.
14 Sep 2004 @ 20:27 by Quinty @22.214.171.124 : And in case there are any Nader voters
who don't see "unelecting" Bush as constituting a state of national emergency, here are some prominent names on the left who supported Nader in 2000 and have changed their minds.
Nader's Top Endorsers From 2000 Urge "Swing States" Support For Kerry
14 Sep 2004 @ 23:42 by b : Quinty,What is PNAC and DLC?
I never mentioned Hitler or was in his bunker. I did personaly see the Concentration Camp at Buchanvald in Bavaria. I don't understand your acronyms. Don't you want to be friends?
15 Sep 2004 @ 17:45 by Quinty @126.96.36.199 : Look
Nothiing personal. This is just getting to be a little too much. PNAC is the Project for a New American Century: if you look at the posts above you'll find it mentioned. DLC is the Democratic Leadership Council: the rightwing of the Democratic Party. And, yes, they have offices at 600 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 400 Washington, DC 20003
16 Sep 2004 @ 18:56 by b : Thanks for the info Quinty
I believe that you are a sincere person.
21 Sep 2004 @ 05:53 by Emily Vonnessa @188.8.131.52 : *I believe you are a sincere person*
I remember this one from my class too - lol.
This is absolutely delightful. A wonderful case study of expository writing.
I think this last one goes under the category of "Damning with Faint Praise." So much for sincerity - lol
Classification: A deductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in the major premise, in the Ad Hominem family.
The argument "attacks" a position by seemingly complimenting or praising someone or someone's argument. However, the praise is misdirected or unenthusiastic, suggesting that relevant or enthusiastic praise would be undeserved. It is also a convenient evasion, and an a not too subtle attempt at a put down, as it permits one to disregard the case being made and dismiss it as non-sensical or misguided, the fruit of bias or ignorance (take your pick) without having contended with any of the points actually presented.
Example: "Non-violence is a fine ideal, and we cannot help feeling a certain respect for the blindly innocent faith that prompts people to adopt such a position."
I didn't realize the thread had continued for so long. Frankly, I am in absolute awe of Quinty for his patience, and this is not "faint-praise"- lol. I am not sure what else might be going on here but, boy, he sure must have touched a sensitive spot. I tell you, the reaction really is a case-study: "petty-objection," "playing dumb," you name it - every tricks in the book.
Such reactions usually appear when one is backed into a corner or is attempting to cover up some inconvenient facts. Sometimes a person will try to muddle an issue by feigning ignorance by claiming that he doesn't understand something that someone has said, i.e., he plays dumb. This technique may make the other party look foolish as he tries to re-explain. The idea is that maybe he'll end-up losing his poise or look overly driven or obsessive. The pay-off is that people may lose a bit of confidence in him or in his position. Needless to say, a reasoned argument or discussion is one that avoids such diversions. It all depends on what one's intent is.
21 Sep 2004 @ 16:12 by Quinty @184.108.40.206 : Emily
Thanks for clarifying. This "debate" has struck me as nonsensical and in a moment of caution I suspected what you said, not knowing if I was beintg paranoid or not. Yes, a trap was there. Or: perhaps, well, let's leave it there. Enough is enough.
24 Sep 2016 @ 05:14 by Markon @220.127.116.11 : Very nice
Very nice post, i certainly love this website, keep on it [link] Website [link] Information [link] Visit
17 Oct 2016 @ 19:36 by yakuza4d @18.104.22.168 : togel online hongkong
After read a couple of the articles on your website these few days, and I truly like your style of blogging. I tag it to my favorites internet site list and will be checking back soon. Please check out my web site also and let me know what you think.
Other entries in Politics
1 Jul 2010 @ 02:21: PHILIPPINES’ NEW PRESIDENT: AKBAR OR NERO?
4 Jun 2010 @ 08:30: SCUTTLE EU NOW, BEFORE 4TH REICH OPTION AWAKENS!
17 Nov 2008 @ 10:11: My 'story' I just uploaded to change.gov
8 Nov 2008 @ 16:06: A Boy Named Sue and the False American Dream
7 Nov 2008 @ 16:01: No He Can't...
6 Nov 2008 @ 09:16: History is NOW
5 Nov 2008 @ 16:58: Obamas World - Africa and the World beyond Poverty !? - but how? - what world?
5 Nov 2008 @ 14:02: Proud to be An American
26 Oct 2008 @ 15:26: Systemic Intelligence: How to teach Systemic Thinking effectively
26 Oct 2008 @ 10:27: OBAMA IS AMERICA’S MAN OF THE HOUR