Are we going to pretend the WR wasn't full blown neo con?

[TheComebackKid]

Not that I don't think a lot of them are just dishonest, but a big part of this is just a constant identity crisis.

- During the Bush years they were neocons, support the troops, opposing the government is un-American, etc etc. The entire debate about the wars (not just here) looked like some bizarre spoof of Starship Troopers (arabs being the bugs).

- 2008 election comes around and they turn into libertarians. Government is inherently evil, the US shouldn't meddle into foreign affairs, both sides are the same so vote Republican, liberty this, liberty that.

- 8 years of Obama end and... "MAGA". Whatever that means.

People change and views change. People saw the neo con agenda and didn't like it. Whats the problem?

It's no different then how the libs all the sudden support the CIA, FBI, Wall Street, MSM, the political establishment, Islam, wars, cheap labor, John McCain, James Comey, ect.

The interesting thing is not that conservatives have changed over time but that you guys want to pretend that liberals haven't. Everyone changes. Conservatives have changed in positive ways...libs have changed in retarded ways.

 

[Viva]

The US has no need for NeoCons anymore. They, as well as Liberals, seem to exist to bicker over semantics while allowing laborious and costly US hegemony to continue. Two sides of the same shit stained shekel.

 

[slivercord]

Can you give us a succinct definition of a neo-con and describe how they differ from other conservatives?

im not going to take the bait and argue with you. but i know youre not stupid and you know the difference, maybe iraq war research will help you a little, and watch the Bush administration, what did the members got in common?

 

[MiniCraque]

People change and views change. People saw the neo con agenda and didn't like it. Whats the problem?

It's no different then how the libs all the sudden support the CIA, FBI, Wall Street, MSM, the political establishment, Islam, wars, cheap labor, John McCain, James Comey, ect.

The interesting thing is not that conservatives have changed over time but that you guys want to pretend that liberals haven't. Everyone changes. Conservatives have changed in positive ways...libs have changed in retarded ways.

Sure, people change. But as a group, drastically (it's quite a jump from "libertarian" to Trumpet) and, more importantly, based on who's the hottest figurehead at the top of the party? That's an identity crisis.

 

[21 Savage]

Not that I don't think a lot of them are just dishonest, but a big part of this is just a constant identity crisis.

- During the Bush years they were neocons, support the troops, opposing the government is un-American, etc etc. The entire debate about the wars (not just here) looked like some bizarre spoof of Starship Troopers (arabs being the bugs).

- 2008 election comes around and they turn into libertarians. Government is inherently evil, the US shouldn't meddle into foreign affairs, both sides are the same so vote Republican, liberty this, liberty that.

- 8 years of Obama end and... "MAGA". Whatever that means.

if only all those people had jordan peterson to help sort themselves out

 

[TheComebackKid]

Sure, people change. But as a group, drastically (it's quite a jump from "libertarian" to Trumpet) and, more importantly, based on who's the hottest figurehead at the top of the party? That's an identity crisis.

People didn't jump to Trump because he was the "hottest figuredhead". No, no. People heard his platform, conservative and libertarian, and they made him the figurehead. That's how it should be.

Now, the way the left reacted to Oprah? That's a silly ass party for ya.

 

[Trotsky]

People change and views change. People saw the neo con agenda and didn't like it. Whats the problem?

It's no different then how the libs all the sudden support the CIA, FBI, Wall Street, MSM, the political establishment, Islam, wars, cheap labor, John McCain, James Comey, ect.

The interesting thing is not that conservatives have changed over time but that you guys want to pretend that liberals haven't. Everyone changes. Conservatives have changed in positive ways...libs have changed in retarded ways.

My god, your posts are so uniquely terrible.

The American left, in all its tepid wonder, has always been more amenable to Muslim persons than the reactionary dolts on the right. And the American left is also rightfully suspect of the CIA, FBI, MSM, John McCain, and James Comey, but is also able to adopt some level of nuance in qualifying and discerning those entities' findings and contributions to American, instead of rejecting entire American institutions as some kind of stupid partisan anti-knowledge. Like, of course the CIA and FBI are ruthless purveyors of American hegemony, but I generally consider their public investigative findings to be valid, so long as some level of methodology is discussed, and certainly more valid than the unqualified and unsupported claims of morons like Trump.

As far as Wall Street, "the political establishment," wars, and cheap labor, I per usual have no idea what you're talking about.

And just LOL @ "conservatives have changed in positive ways." That's why the American right has lost support of virtually the entire professional community, from economists, to scientists, to political scientists, to historians, all whose mouths are agape at how unprincipled and idiotic you all are. The American right is now whatever the GOP purports it to be: basically a bunch of morons recklessly distributing wealth upwards and destabilizing the economy on the basis of being scared by hollow identity politics.

 

[TheComebackKid]

My god, your posts are so uniquely terrible.

The American left, in all its tepid wonder, has always been more amenable to Muslim persons than the reactionary dolts on the right.

There was a time when the left would call out the systematic human rights abuses by Muslim nations and culture. Not anymore. Instead you call label anyone who does call it out as a racist.

And the American left is also rightfully suspect of the CIA, FBI, MSM, John McCain, and James Comey, but is also able to adopt some level of nuance in qualifying and discerning those entities' findings and contributions to American, instead of rejecting entire American institutions as some kind of stupid partisan anti-knowledge.

No, they're not the least bit suspect. You guys eat up everything that comes from them like a bag of paintchips.

Like, of course the CIA and FBI are ruthless purveyors of American hegemony, but I generally consider their public investigative findings to be valid, so long as some level of methodology is discussed, and certainly more valid than the unqualified and unsupported claims of morons like Trump.

Case in point

As far as Wall Street, "the political establishment," wars, and cheap labor, I per usual have no idea what you're talking about.

This was your candidates platform last year. And you guys fought tooth and nail to get her into the white house. And then cried when she lost.

And just LOL @ "conservatives have changed in positive ways." That's why the American right has lost support of virtually the entire professional community, from economists, to scientists, to political scientists, to historians, all whose mouths are agape at how unprincipled and idiotic you all are. The American right is now whatever the GOP purports it to be: basically a bunch of morons recklessly distributing wealth upwards and destabilizing the economy on the basis of being scared by hollow identity politics.

Sorry but thats not reality. The reality is that things have morphed from the Conservative vs Liberal paradigm to Sane vs Insane. Allow me to illustrate:

Sane:

Secure borders
Energy independence
Low taxes
Low regulation
Two genders
Corresponding bathrooms
Free speech
Peaceful gatherings
Defeating Isis
Keeping jobs in America
Accountability in govt
Not policing the world
Not funding the world

Insane:

Open borders
Not producing our own energy
High taxes
High regulation
8,256 genders
Grown men in the little girls room
Censored speech
Riots and mob violence
Arming Isis
Sending jobs overseas
Govt corruption
Policing the world
Giving away all of our money

Which side are you on Trotsk?

 

[Trotsky]

Energy independence
Free speech
Keeping jobs in America
Accountability in govt
Not policing the world

You. Can't be serious. You have to realize the irony in making these particular claims as you elephant walk behind a guy nixing investment in green energy, heightening dependence on fossil fuels, actively defaming journalists and telling supporters to ignore them, openly talking about bolstering libel law enforcement, ramping up foreign meddling through economic sanctions and liberalized drone strike usage, actively running by far, without doubt the least transparent presidential administration in modern history, and attempting to undermine investigation into his potential crimes by asking government officials to obstruct justice.


As far as your articulation of the American left's policy portfolio, I completely believe that that is your perception and the extent of your understanding. Because, why bother with boring stuff of actual substance when you can talk about guys in girls bathrooms.

 

[TheComebackKid]

You. Can't be serious. You have to realize the irony in making these particular claims as you elephant walk behind a guy nixing investment in green energy, heightening dependence on fossil fuels, actively defaming journalists and telling supporters to ignore them, openly talking about bolstering libel law enforcement, ramping up foreign meddling through economic sanctions and liberalized drone strike usage, actively running by far, without doubt the least transparent presidential administration in modern history, and attempting to undermine investigation into his potential crimes by asking government officials to obstruct justice.

It seems to me that you a) don't understand the concepts of things like free speech, energy independence, govt accountability, ect and b) you have accepted a warped view of reality.

Free speech doesn't mean people dont' get criticized for what they say or print. Free speech also doesn't give one the right to smear others with lies and then profit off of them. Free speech does include be able to give a public speech without a mob of crazed, blue haired trotskys burning the place down.

Energy independence does not mean "green energy"...although it can include that. It does, however, include drilling and mining in our own country instead of buying it from other people.

Govt accountability does not include allowing rogue govt agencies to run wild with witch hunts and coup attempts. Govt accountability does include calling those people out. It does include exposing the dirty laundry of the previous administration and former govt officials.

As far as your articulation of the American left's policy portfolio, I completely believe that that is your perception and the extent of your understanding. Because, why bother with boring stuff of actual substance when you can talk about guys in girls bathrooms.

Oh really? Well fill me in then. What do liberals want policy wise.

Borders - Closed with enforced immigration laws or open with a catch and release policy?

Energy independence - Produce our own fossil fuel or buy from others?

Taxes - High or low?

Regulation - High or low?

Bathrooms - Separated by biology or self identification?

Isis - Defeating them or arming them?

Jobs in America - Renegotiate trade deals or continue sending jobs overseas?

Acct in Govt - Investigate Hillary Clinton, the intelligence community, and the Obama admin for all of their blatantly shady shit or no?

Police the world - yay or nay?

Funding the world - Keep sending billions to random countries like Pakistan or no?

Inquiring minds would like to know Trotsks.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Actually it was 50/50 gun-toting neocons and tree-hugging hippies.

 

[Gandhi]

Yeah, that was Eugene. Used to "exaggerate" his online character a lot more back then. There was a 20 odd page Bristol Palin thread that got some laughs.
Mind you there were periods in there where race, religion and CT threads weren't allowed in the WR, so I guess there potentially could have been a lot of closet cases.

Ha well he is totally low energy now SAD!!!

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

im not going to take the bait and argue with you. but i know youre not stupid and you know the difference, maybe iraq war research will help you a little, and watch the Bush administration, what did the members got in common?

It's not bait. It's a sincere question. The word neo-con gets thrown around quite a bit without any clear meaning imo. I think alt-right is better defined these days than neo-con.

Who are some examples of neo-cons and who are some prominent conservatives who are not neo-cons?

 

[EZShrimpn]

It's not bait. It's a sincere question. The word neo-con gets thrown around quite a bit without any clear meaning imo. I think alt-right is better defined these days than neo-con.

Who are some examples of neo-cons and who are some prominent conservatives who are not neo-cons?

Neocon was quite clearly defined earlier in the thread. It's easier to say who is a Neocon because as an intellectual movement it is rather small and centered around the work of a small number of thinkers like Leo Strauss and Irving Krystol.

Some neocons:
Max Boot
John Bolton
Bill Krystol
Douglas Feith
Robert Kagan
Donald Rumsfeld
Richard Perle
Paul Wolfowitz
Dick Cheney
Larry Franklin
Lewis Libby

Some not neocons:
Henry Kissinger
Donald Trump
Barry Goldwater
Jonah Goldberg
Grover Norquist
Dinesh D'Souza
Erick Erickson
Pat Buchannan

 

[slivercord]

[/QUOTE]

Who are some examples of neo-cons and who are some prominent conservatives who are not neo-cons?[/QUOTE]

Penis Cheney, Condy Rice, basically all of Bush gabinet are neo cons. If you're looking for examples of "prominent conservatives" like you put it. then you don't understand the morphing process the right has been part of. From Bush to trump all it matters is a republican calling the shots.

 

[Trotsky]

Neocon was quite clearly defined earlier in the thread. It's easier to say who is a Neocon because as an intellectual movement it is rather small and centered around the work of a small number of thinkers like Leo Strauss and Irving Krystol.

Some neocons:
Max Boot
John Bolton
Bill Krystol
Douglas Feith
Robert Kagan
Donald Rumsfeld
Richard Perle
Paul Wolfowitz
Dick Cheney
Larry Franklin
Lewis Libby

Some not neocons:
Henry Kissinger
Donald Trump
Barry Goldwater
Jonah Goldberg
Grover Norquist
Dinesh D'Souza
Erick Erickson
Pat Buchannan

Using a strict historical definition of the term, and excluding some of the guys in your list such as Kissinger, seems disingenuous with its colloquial usage, to me at least. Neoconservative is no longer meant, as far as I can tell, to operate from the presumption that full on conservatives are automatically interventionist hawks and that the neocon is a liberal that converges with them on that issue whilst retaining some level of progressivism on domestic social issues (especially since, on domestic economic issues, the history of the term dates back to a period when the conservatives and liberals of America were fairly close together).

If you are able, though, since you mentioned the "intellectual movement," can you differentiate on a philosophical basis how neoconservatives, such that led to the firmly right-wing staffers of the GWB administration, arrived upon interventionist philosophy in a way different from the conservative hawks of the preceding generation? It seems counter-intuitive that these neoconservatives, coming in some fashion from the left of the party purportedly, would staff a Republican administration that was far, far more conservative than those of the 60s and 70s.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Neocon was quite clearly defined earlier in the thread. It's easier to say who is a Neocon because as an intellectual movement it is rather small and centered around the work of a small number of thinkers like Leo Strauss and Irving Krystol.

Some neocons:
Max Boot
John Bolton
Bill Krystol
Douglas Feith
Robert Kagan
Donald Rumsfeld
Richard Perle
Paul Wolfowitz
Dick Cheney
Larry Franklin
Lewis Libby

Some not neocons:
Henry Kissinger
Donald Trump
Barry Goldwater
Jonah Goldberg
Grover Norquist
Dinesh D'Souza
Erick Erickson
Pat Buchannan

Thank you. I quickly perused the thread and did not see such a definition, but I'll go back and look again.

A quick glance at the list of neo-cons you supplied shows that several of these names are prominently anti-Trump, including Boot and Krystol.

 

[EZShrimpn]

A quick glance at the list of neo-cons you supplied shows that several of these names are prominently anti-Trump, including Boot and Krystol.

That's true. Most of them openly supported Hillary.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Neocon was quite clearly defined earlier in the thread. It's easier to say who is a Neocon because as an intellectual movement it is rather small and centered around the work of a small number of thinkers like Leo Strauss and Irving Krystol.

Some neocons:
Max Boot
John Bolton
Bill Krystol
Douglas Feith
Robert Kagan
Donald Rumsfeld
Richard Perle
Paul Wolfowitz
Dick Cheney
Larry Franklin
Lewis Libby

Some not neocons:
Henry Kissinger
Donald Trump
Barry Goldwater
Jonah Goldberg
Grover Norquist
Dinesh D'Souza
Erick Erickson
Pat Buchannan

How the fuck is Kissinger not a neo-con. He is the father of that retarded shit

 

[VivaRevolution]

It seems to me that you a) don't understand the concepts of things like free speech, energy independence, govt accountability, ect and b) you have accepted a warped view of reality.

Free speech doesn't mean people dont' get criticized for what they say or print. Free speech also doesn't give one the right to smear others with lies and then profit off of them. Free speech does include be able to give a public speech without a mob of crazed, blue haired trotskys burning the place down.

Energy independence does not mean "green energy"...although it can include that. It does, however, include drilling and mining in our own country instead of buying it from other people.

Govt accountability does not include allowing rogue govt agencies to run wild with witch hunts and coup attempts. Govt accountability does include calling those people out. It does include exposing the dirty laundry of the previous administration and former govt officials.



Oh really? Well fill me in then. What do liberals want policy wise.

Borders - Closed with enforced immigration laws or open with a catch and release policy?

Energy independence - Produce our own fossil fuel or buy from others?

Taxes - High or low?

Regulation - High or low?

Bathrooms - Separated by biology or self identification?

Isis - Defeating them or arming them?

Jobs in America - Renegotiate trade deals or continue sending jobs overseas?

Acct in Govt - Investigate Hillary Clinton, the intelligence community, and the Obama admin for all of their blatantly shady shit or no?

Police the world - yay or nay?

Funding the world - Keep sending billions to random countries like Pakistan or no?

Inquiring minds would like to know Trotsks.

So a few things here. Free speech should mean that you don't need the money to hire a lawyer to exercise it. Trump has a history of using lawyers to silence people. I can't imagine why you would defend that.

Drilling for gas and oil, and mining for coal, does not benefit the US if it is being sold on the global commodities market. I'm pretty sure I have pointed this out to you before.

The rest of the stuff is tropes. Republicans don't want to fix any of that shit either, because they are for sale whores, just like the democrats.

If you really want to talk about trump, let's talk about campaign finance. He stood up during the whole election, and said politicians are for sale. He has purchased them before.

If trump is actually interested in fixing this country, and not selling that influence, then shouldn't he be trying to fix that?