 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Date: 05 May 03 - 06:31 PM US military was used to transport opium in Afghanistan first thing, Doug. Millions will die of heroin addiction now because of the Bushes. They weren't satisfied with their cocaine cartel. The Russians were at least trying to STOP the opium trade in Afghanistan, but the Bushes...subhuman. Yeah, Bobert. A lot of 'trustees' in prisons now are farmed out to do computer hack work. Send out those penis enlargment and loan consolidation e-mails. I think Doug volunteered for some of the more unpleasant work (trying to put a happy face on satanistic serial killers), so it makes you wonder just HOW long his sentence is. Must be a long one, to stoop so low. He'll never engage me in discourse because he doesn't know what he's talking about. No thinking individual can support the Bushes now. Notice how Doug just barfs up the latest Limbaugh headline from time to time. But I guess it beats having to send out emails for penis enlargements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker Date: 05 May 03 - 06:40 PM DougR-The draft I spoke of is described in the bill that CarolC provided a link to. That site contains a link to the full text of the bill, which entails a universal draft for all persons between 18 and 26, which can include non-military service, where nearly all aspects of the service are at the unreviewed, unrestricted discretion of the president. Take a look at the text, and then tell us what you think about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Greg F. Date: 05 May 03 - 06:45 PM Doug? Think?? HAHAHAHAHASHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AH UMMMM.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAH What I mean to say is... GUFFAWWWWWW!!!!!!! AH HAHAHAHHAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.... My gosh, you're hilarious!!!!!!!!! I just can't stop laughing. Keep it coming. Doug repeat or Doug parrot or Doug react,or Doug spew, OK. But Doug think? HAHAHAHAHASHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AH UMMMM.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAH What I mean to say is... GUFFAWWWWWW!!!!!!! AH HAHAHAHHAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.... My gosh, you're hilarious!!!!!!!!! I just can't stop laughing. You're killin me.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Date: 05 May 03 - 06:47 PM Just go here and type in S.89 for the universal conscription bill coming down the pipeline. Of course, it'll take another visit from one of the CIA's bad boys first: Thomas.gov Search Engine And since I don't think they let Doug have free access to open sites at his computer, here's the interesting bit: SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION. (a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act. (b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either-- (1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or (2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security. (SLAVERY! SLAVERY! SLAVERY!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR Date: 06 May 03 - 01:55 AM Greg F.: I am delighted to bring some joy to your obviously miserable life. A few laughs, a few guffaws, who could ask for more? As to the Draft, I wouldn't be opposed to it. A bit of military service might be good for young Americans. It didn't seem to damage the ones I grew up with much, and perhaps contributed to their growing up. I don't think a Draft bill has a snowball's chance in hell of passing though. The volunteer service is too successful. Even the military doesn't want a draft. And no, I didn't read Carol C's post. Now that it was clarified what the poster was talking about I recalled the Congressman from New York proposing one, and saying on the Fox News Network (sounds of gagging)that he planned to introduce legislation re-implementing the draft. I assume it is the same one Carol posted about. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth Date: 06 May 03 - 02:07 AM Giggle up a storm there, Beccy. THESE are the unwashed, dirty-haired, flea-scratchin', wild-eyed liberals who own the media. The really convenient thing about this is that you don't have to furrow your brow with thinking. When they want your opinion, they'll give it to you. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Date: 06 May 03 - 08:55 AM Great, now I'm a disdainful McCarthyite and DougR peddles penis enlargements. And you say WE'RE not thinking? Great attack on ideological merits. As for media being corporate owned? Well, duh! Who doesn't know that? With the exception of Fox News, can you name one major media outlet that trends conservative? Turner Broadcasting? Surely you're familiar with it's less than conservative (ha) namesake- TED TURNER?!? I'm not arguing that the media isn't corporate owned. I'm just saying that the Stephanopolouses, Rathers, Brokaws, Jenningses, Kings (as in Larry), Helen Thomases, et al. have been the major media mouthpieces for a very long time and they all trend liberal or at least left of center. I would say you have very little to complain about unless you're really distressed by the major network evening news turning into news magazines. Beccy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Date: 06 May 03 - 10:42 AM Dem vs Rep is a false system. Once you internalize that, everything else makes sense. Ted Kennedy and GWBush on the same side of larger govt. It is all about the federal govt growing even larger. And one of the ways the Bureaucracy has brought this into the present is by allowing liberals to take over the Rep party. The EVIDENCE is that 'big govt' people are running the Rep party. Forget the Fox news network and the press releases from the politicians, look at their voting records. EVERYTHING is about federal expansion. The are taking over every aspect of your life...full speed ahead on both the Dem and Rep sides of the aisle. It is a rush to tyranny, while people debate conservative vs liberal. There is only command-and-control now. A handful issue orders, the rest follow. LOOK at the Homeland and Patriot legislation. Light goes red, ALL must do this and that. In America. Not even the Soviet Union had the guts to put that crap on paper. And in the US, BOTH parties are in on this, and the 'neo-cons' are just big-govt people from the old Soviet mold. Replacing these people with Democrats won't help. Hillary Clinton has already said the problem with the Homeland Security business is that it's not 'controlled' enough. So she would just exacerbate the problem. Wake up, folks. The Dem vs Rep 'fight' is false. It is a way of making you THINK you have some say in things. But what you actually have is a military pro-consul by the name of Ralph Eberhart who held the NORAD interceptor jets on the ground Sept 11 and was then promoted to military pro-consul (dictator) of North America, with an unelected 'president' doing photo op after photo op among the troops, just like Hussein and Kim Jung Il (dictators), and you have news shows jumping from a spot about a skiing dog to the 'debate' between the candidates. Buy guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Date: 06 May 03 - 10:53 AM And I tell people to buy guns, by the way, because the purchase itself carries the weight of a hundred votes. The ruling elite and their social engineers don't know what the hell to do when honest, law-abiding people walk into a gun shop and fill out the bushit paperwork and leave with a gun and ammo. That feeds their DEEPEST fears. A gun sold is a statement that someone just woke up to the TRUE nature of things. Govt can't protect you, so you need to protect yourself. Govt is only there to bleed you and enslave you now, but by buying a gun, you have drawn some line beyond which they can't push you. And they don't know what that line is. It's different for all. So buy guns. Make them think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc Date: 06 May 03 - 11:24 AM Beccy: "trend" is not a verb. Aaagh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Date: 06 May 03 - 11:35 AM You ever work in advertising, pdc? It has its own definition of what is and is not acceptable. Using "trend" as a verb is a bad habit I've carried over into "housewifing" (now you can REALLY cringe.) :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Date: 06 May 03 - 11:44 AM One more thing, pdc. I think that the voting system you discussed is a terrible one. I do not think that achieving a certain level of education makes you more capable of rational decision or social betterment. I think attaining high levels of education is illustrative of an ability to focus, commit and follow through but not of much else. The system that you suggest is utterly fair reminds me of some of the laws that kept black folks from voting following their emancipation. Now- I am NOT suggesting you're a racist, but what you're suggesting is "utterly fair" is rather "Bell Curve", don't you think? While education is undoubtedly important, I think there are a multitude of other ways to better oneself. Education is a panacaea for many problems... and the Lord knows that the electorate could stand a better education (which one do I punch for Gore????) but I'd hate to live in a country where some pinhead elitist got to judge whether I was educated enough to merit uber-citizenship. Beccy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth Date: 06 May 03 - 01:44 PM Dan Rather got into trouble with his bosses at CBS by mentioning to a BBC interviewer that there were plenty of stories that he would like to cover, but the network had cautioned him to put a lid on it. When he got back to the States, his bosses gave him a wedgie for what he said durning the BBC interview. Ted Koppel got similar treatment at ABC. There have been a number of news reporters who have been jerked up that same way--and some of them have made the news because of it, along with the implication that they were somehow being un-American for saying anything critical of the Bush Administration. A couple of news services have been told to soft-pedal some of the stories they were working on or they would no longer be admitted to press conferences. I don't know what you call it, but I call it censorship. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Greg F. Date: 06 May 03 - 02:28 PM I do not think that... education makes you more capable of rational decision or social betterment. Lets hear it for ignorance as the basis of critical decision making and the foundation of a democratic society. That's certainly the BuShite agenda... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker Date: 06 May 03 - 02:49 PM Beccy-I will warrant that education alone does not provide a guarantee that one is competent. However, if our education system was effective, it should ensure that everyone willing and able to learn would do so, and be effective, competent members of society. In such a case, education would be a minimum requirement, since anyone who didn't have an education would either lack the capability or dedication to better themselves, and would thus be unworthy of a vote. Unfortunately, poverty, bad teaching, and a number of other uncontrollable factors may currently prevent an otherwise competent person from achieving, so I will admit that it is not at the moment a good benchmark. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: NicoleC Date: 06 May 03 - 03:16 PM I think that formal education doesn't necessarily inmprove one's ability to make rational choices, but it does increase the chances one might get there. The sheer number of spoiled rich kids at USC who failed to even attempt to learn anything in college besides how to chug the most beer forever soured any faith I might have in the collegiate system as a pancea. Nonetheless, I know many smart people who never had the opportunity to go to college, but that didn't stop them from educating themselves. Setting up arbitrary judgements on one's "education" based on a flawed system that costs huge amounts to allow 19 year old to get drunk at frat parties seems to be ludicrous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Date: 06 May 03 - 03:19 PM Thank you, Forum Lurker for clarifying for me. I always post on the fly because one kid or another needs attention. My point, to expound, is that many people make it through the educational system without coming out any more socially aware or intelligent than when they entered. One major example? How many illiterate professional athletes are there who have college degrees? I am not saying that education is unimportant. In fact, I think it's one of the most important things in the world. My question is WHO is going to determine what qualifies as being educated enough to earn that extra vote? A panel of experts??? Beccy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: TIA Date: 06 May 03 - 04:04 PM If you doubt the effect of the Republican propaganda machine, or still believe the "biased liberal media" canard, please read this: recent or this: older |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR Date: 06 May 03 - 04:07 PM Don: Ownership does not necessarily mean that the stockholders manage the news. The executives either. Stockholders are not just conservatives you know, liberals own stock too! If the stockholders are not satisfied with the executives (because they are believed to be micro-managing the news departments or for any other reason) they can replace said executives in a New York minute. I haven't read the book written by a well-known former newscaster (CBS I believe), but reviews of the book indicate that the writer's research found that the majority of network news anchors and reporters are lefties, not righties. I would think you are aware of that book, but if you are not, I'll get you the name of the author and the title. It was on the New York Times Bestseller list for ages. Just a hunch, but I suspect that the reason most Mudcatters who write to complain about the bias of the media are mostly dissatisfied because the media is not far enough to the left to suit them. Even the middle is not satisfactory to them. Just my opinion of course. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Date: 06 May 03 - 04:09 PM Bias by Bernard Goldberg That's what you're looking for, DougR. It's worth reading! Beccy I just have to add that once again, this whole argument is going to end in no one's mind being changed. To paraphrase...If you already believe, no proof is necessary. If you do not believe, no proof is sufficient. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Date: 06 May 03 - 04:26 PM The media has never been liberal. There have been 'liberals' reporting and commenting, sure, but the myth that the media has a 'liberal bias' was started a few years ago when people started figuring out the SPECIFICS of how the tyrannists were taking over the world and the US. To galvanize and unify U.S. moderates and conservatives afraid of losing what they had, the govt-controlled media started to disseminate the story that they (the media) were liberal and therefore could not be trusted. So today, you have 'conservative' talk show hosts proposing Stalinist concentration camps, Soviet forced labor in the form of conscription, imposition of tyrannical rule by conquest while calling it 'democratization'. And these are the so-called CONSERVATIVES proposing this stuff while they continue the 'liberal bias' sleight of hand. Amazing. Truly amazing. The power of too much comfort and TV. Think about it. The media started self-identifying itself as 'liberal-biased', then suddenly we have a rash of 'conservatives' talking about putting you in gulags. Mis-direction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Peg Date: 06 May 03 - 04:51 PM lemme get this straight, DougR: you claim there is a liberal media bias because of some book reviews you read, about a book (which you have NOT read, and in fact do not even know the TITLE of) in which the author (whose name you ALSO do not know) claims that the majority of news anchors are "lefties." Well, gee, that sure has me sold. What a fine, factually-based assessment you've offered. As usual. I wish *all* conservatives were as articulate and well-informed as you are, Doug! And I mean that sincerely! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: CarolC Date: 06 May 03 - 04:58 PM I think the media's bias transcends party politics. I'd say the media's bias reflects whatever the large and powerful corporations who own it see as being in their best interest, regardless of how it fits into party politics or "Liberal" and "Conservative" ideologies. But I do think the large and powerful media moguls see it as being in their best interest to make people think the media is controlled by the "liberals". It's all about distracting people from what's really going on, and about "dividing and conquering". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc Date: 06 May 03 - 06:18 PM To Beccy: You're right -- I shouldn't have said that "trend is not a verb;" I should have said that it isn't a verb -- yet! English is changing so fast that it's hard to keep up. A professor once wrote "A-a-a-a-g-h!" across a paper I wrote in which I used the word "operationalize." I will, however, defend education -- of any sort -- as helping to create more competent, generally better-thinking citizens. Education teaches about the history of one's country including its political base, the sciences (how the world works), and if a student is very lucky, it teaches how to think critically, which I believe is the most important gain of all. However, you are right about a lot of frat kids just learning to drink beer. My husband is a professor, who claims that in any class, 20% of the students are wasting their time, his time, and opportunities for students who could make better use of the chairs these kids are taking up. Bear in mind, however, that 80% (according to my husband) of the kids in college actually learn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc Date: 06 May 03 - 07:45 PM On the other hand (I can't resist this), look at the benefits of drunken frat boy education. You can become President. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR Date: 07 May 03 - 12:55 AM Geeze, pdc, is this thread REALLY about using proper English? Peg: I feel very humble that you were so impressed with my post. Very humble indeed. True, it would have been better had I researched the author and the title of the book before posting, but I assumed that Mudcatters, who are obviously very enlightened, and informed would know the book I was referring to. I appreciate Beccy pointing out the name of the author, and the title of the book. She is a Jewel! Perhaps, now knowing both, you will avail yourself of the opportunity of reading the book and reporting back where you believe Bernard Kalb to be wrong! If you have the time, of course. Wouldn't want to take you away from more important happenings of course. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Peg Date: 07 May 03 - 01:16 AM Doug; I was not impressed. I was being sarcastic. But then you know that. At least you're finally admitting you're completely ill-informed on just about everything. Hmm, what was the title of that book again? I must go read it so I know what to think about this subject!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR Date: 07 May 03 - 01:54 AM Oops, Peg, again you did not read my post. I did not say I was ill informed about everything! That is YOUR assessment (which I hastily add is your right). :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: CarolC Date: 07 May 03 - 08:29 AM Are you going to read the book too, DougR, or are you automatically exempted because you already believe everything the book says, even without actually knowing what it says? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: TIA Date: 07 May 03 - 09:25 AM DougR - the author of the book is Bernard Goldberg. Bernard Kalb is someone else entirely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Jack the Sailor Date: 07 May 03 - 09:42 AM I read "Bias" last week. I will say that at least one conservative is as well informed as Doug, Bernard Goldberg. He starts the book by saing it is not about his personal feud with Dan Rather. then spends about half the book whinging about Dan Rather. He did say that research showed that most of the Washing Press Corps, voted for MacGovern over Nixon, and for Clinton over Bush. He made a bunch of other tenuous points about such things as the coverage of homelessness etc. In presenting his points he time continually shoots down his own arguments and further weakens them but lapses into illogic and self pity. Like Doug and Beccy, he does the "conservative" cause more harm than he does good. I would not recommend the book as anything but bitter, childish public airing of Goldberg's animosity toward Dan Rather. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Date: 07 May 03 - 10:28 AM It is bitter. I never said it was a political powerhouse- just that it's worth reading. Don't put words in my mouth JTS. Beccy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth Date: 07 May 03 - 03:17 PM I detect a distinctly "to the right" bias in the the news media when I compare the information disseminated to the American public with what is presented in news media outside this country. The patterns are obvious to anyone who wants to take the trouble, and the internet makes it easy. Although one hears critical reports from time to time from domestic news services, these are invariably dismissed by some here as "wild-eyed liberals" while what might be called the "mainstream media" (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and most of the newspapers and radio stations owned by the same mega-corporations) are labelled "liberally biased." Strangely enough, though, the domestic "wild-eyed liberal" media tends to reflect the news that the rest of the world's news services report. But then, one must draw the obvious conclusion that the media in the United States are the ones who get it Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR Date: 07 May 03 - 04:39 PM Yes, Carol C., after JTS's review I definitely plan to read the book! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Doug_Remley Date: 08 May 03 - 06:24 AM Apparently too long at peace, what exactly is a "Neo-Com?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Date: 08 May 03 - 09:23 AM Neo-con is short for neo-Conservative. This most commonly refers to many former democrat and/or liberals who *grin* saw the error of their ways during the presidency of Ronald Reagan and switched over to conservatism and/or republicanism. The term has taken on a meaning, though, that is a bit more inclusive and refers to most outspoken solid conservatives (thereby excluding those like Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, etc...) Most of these people, in the true tradition of converts of any sort, are outspoken firebrands for their cause(s). A couple quick examples??? David Horowitz Bill Bennett Norman Podhoretz John Podhoretz Linda Chavez Does that answer your question? Beccy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Date: 08 May 03 - 10:52 AM Short-course on neo-cons... Communism follows corporate fascism follows socialism. America has been socialized by the populist Democrats. The more radical socialists joined the Republican party (traditionally the party of conservatives) and are helping to turn the socialized country over to the wealthy (phase we are in now). The economy will collapse as a result of the massive thefts being perpetrated in the name of 'war' and 'tax cuts', and the citizens will be forced to rely totally on the govt...communism. And you will be told every step of the way that you need to give up rights while you wave plastic American flags made in a slave-labor factory in China (mis-direction). There IS no liberal/conservative mindset at the national level now. It is all command and control. Military. We are just a logistical problem to be overcome with a final solution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Date: 08 May 03 - 10:59 AM DG- You forgot all the Moloch malarky... Beccy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Date: 08 May 03 - 11:54 AM Once a year the Bushes go to Bohemian Grove in nothern California and take part in the 'Sacrifice of Care' ceremony in front of a 40-foot statue of Moloch. I don't think that's connected to Condi Rice and the other communists in the neo-con movement, but it might be. Please expand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: NicoleC Date: 08 May 03 - 12:07 PM Hmmm. I've never heard neo-conservative used the Beccy uses it. Typically, neo-conservatives are extreme right wingers, often leaning toward Christian fundamentalism. They support a unilateralist America based on military empire, and still pretend to be fiscally conservative, but in reality their fiscal views have abandoned any fiscal conservatism or small government. Examples: Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Date: 08 May 03 - 12:39 PM Leo Strauss New York Times piece. Some people don't subscribe, but there's the link. All the Bushit NeoCons are followers of this guy. Thinly-veiled Trotskyite. Proposes conquering the world (old communist goal), and proposes it in the name of democracy. Tyranny in the name of democracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 08 May 03 - 01:51 PM Hmmm. This is all very interesting. Bobert accuses Doug of taking the President's side no matter what. But Bobert takes the President's OPPOSITE side, no matter what. So what's the difference? In case none of the rest of you have noticed, the Emperor is NAKED. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth Date: 08 May 03 - 02:06 PM How did Trotsky get into this? I don't know why our belovéd Dreaded Guest has to keep conjuring up far-fetched conspiracy theories replete with black helicopters and concentration camps when the real truth of the matter is no less appalling. Doug Remley, neo-cons or neo-conservatives are the Right Wing of the Right Wing. They believe that since America is now the world's only superpower, that it is America's God-given destiny to dominate the world, politically and economically if possible, or militarily if not. Any nation that shows the potential of becoming a superpower that could challenge America's current dominant position must be put down. This policy includes such things as launching preemptive wars. Students of American history will recognize this as rehashed Manifest Destiny, but on a global scale. The first stage in this world domination is control of the Middle East and its energy resources. Since most major countries in the world depend on Middle East oil, whoever controls that resource, in essence, controls the world. This puts the Iraq war into context. It's the first step in implementing the Project for a New American Century. Does this sound excessive, like one of these world-domination conspiracy theories floating around? Well, let the neo-conservatives tell you in their own words what their plans for the world are. They spell the whole thing out RIGHT HERE. Read what they have to say in some of the articles listed under Defense and National Security. Each of the links on the map will lead you to some pretty fascinating reading. But especially:—read the Statement of Principles. Then scroll to the bottom and look at the signatories to this statement. If this doesn't give you cold chills, I don't know what will. There are critics of this position who call these people "crypto-fascists," or just plain "fascists." Since this conjures up visions of Germany in the 1930s and 40s, it might seem a bit excessive. But for a stricter interpretation of the word "fascist," perhaps one should take the word of Benito Mussolini, considered the "father of fascism." Mussolini said, "Fascism* should more properly be called 'corporatism,' since it is the merger of state and corporate power." I leave it to you to work out the math. Don Firth *The word fascism comes from the Latin, referring to a fasces which is a bundle of sticks tied around an ax. This was used in Rome as a symbol of imperial authority. Mussolini is said to have adopted it as symbolizing of the unity of corporations (the sticks) with the authority of the State (the ax). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Doug_Remley Date: 08 May 03 - 04:33 PM Thanks, Don. I was getting a little worried with the ...ah... different references. I comprehend and remember sightings from the past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Date: 08 May 03 - 05:15 PM I think we can all agree that National Review is a conservative magazine (paleo-con in the terminology which we are now discussing.) Perhaps you'd be interested in reading what a conservative (other than me since you all think I'm not to be trusted) considers a neo-conservative. See the link below: Neo-Conservative definition by a paleo-conservative group. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker Date: 08 May 03 - 05:26 PM Beccy-All the article did was claim that because polls showed that half of the people in the country would support an attack against a country "proven" to sponsor terrorism, that there are no such things as neo-conservatives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth Date: 08 May 03 - 05:53 PM Beccy, why don't you read the links I posted just above? Let the neo-conservatives themselves tell you where they stand and what they're up to? But if your objection is to the term "neo-conservative," then call them "super-patriots" or "true American heroes" or "apple pie and ice cream" if you want. But they are still the people who are leading the country right now. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Ebbie Date: 08 May 03 - 06:48 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc Date: 08 May 03 - 08:20 PM To Don Firth: The statement of principles of the New World Order is chilling enough as it stands. But if you read between the lines, it appears even worse. The final principle: "we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." Check the wording: "preserving AND EXTENDING." And note how "our prosperity" is in the middle, between security and principles. I strongly believe that accurate wording would read "an international order friendly to American business interests..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Bobert Date: 08 May 03 - 10:20 PM Casual Observer "observes" the bobert seems to be always on the other side on any issue from Bush? Ahhhhh, and you point? Yeah, I can't find any common ground with a man whoexposes policies and values that 20 years ago would have placed him in the extreme right wing of the right wing. Like what are you noe-cons missin here? Really. What are you missin'? You worship, now make that *worship* the feet of a friggin' coward. Yeah, this man *quit* on this government who spent you tax dollars training him so he could what"? Friggin' quit, that's what! Stole you tax dollars! And he's still at stealin' you tax dollars. Man, this guy has been given a *pass* by the Republoican press, and he's been given a *pass* by some folks her at Mudcat, but he's a crook, a liar, a thief and you folks who think he's the best thing since sliced bread, well......... Get over your denial! You're *worshipping* a crook!!!! Bobert |
