BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 10:49 PM

lol. I'm repeating myself. Sorry.

DG

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,DG
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 10:47 PM

Ron Paul's Speech Read into the Congressional Record

Well worth reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 03 - 07:53 PM

Neo Conned

Ron Paul's address to the House of Reps on July 10, 2003.

And then there's THIS about the 'small govt' 'conservative' Republicans doing all they can to increase govt. Raising the amount you can contribute to your IRA...Individual Retirement Account...MONEY YOU WILL NEVER SEE, PEOPLE! THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO TAKE EVERY PENNY YOU HAVE! And this is being whipped along by the neo-cons. Total-govt-control-communists posing as the opposite.

DG

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 11:14 PM

My biggest problem with Ron Paul is his ULTRA-conservatism. Running the feds out of my life and out of Texas sounds good, but then who would protect us from our home-grown cut-throats? Strict constitutionalism looks good on paper, but we ALL have our local bullies. I think Paul is right about the hijacking of the Republican party, though. Slick trick, and conservative Republicans aren't even aware of it...

And the Asia Times piece refers to what Don Firth and others pointed out a while back. The PNAC (members mentioned in the Asia Times piece) released a document in 1998 outlining their blueprint for the future (Project for a New American Century). A copy went to Jeb Bush, even. This was WELL before the rigged election, so why did an obscure governor get a copy? And the PNAC talked about needing an 'event like Pearl Harbor' to get Americans behind a massive invasion of the Asian oil fields. THESE are the terrorists behind Sept 11.

William Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News, Jan. 27, 2003

My biggest gripe with the PNAC report (I mean, at least these monsters TOLD us they were planning to create hell on earth), but my biggest gripe is that they titled the thing 'Project for a New AMERICAN Century'. There is nothing American about what was laid out in the report or what's happened since. But the title of the report is intended to make Americans think we will BENEFIT from the murder of civilians by US troops on the other side of the world. After all, they're going to make the 'new century' AMERICAN. What tripe. It's all being run by monied elite who have no national allegiance. They want a tyrannical world govt.

DG

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 10:47 PM

Well, DG, I remember Ron Paul well for his couargous stand against Bush's push for war but I'm not oo sure that we's agree on much more than that issue. There are a lot of corporate and governmental crooks out there that need to be reeled in and the states aren't up to the task. Yeah, I think that if the US government would just keep these folks on paid vations (incarceration...) then maybe I'd listen to the rest of what Ron Paul has to say....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 10:18 PM

And another article that appears to clear Tenet.

Tenet not guilty

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 10:16 PM

The game is up, and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz lose! The following link leads to an article that states that within hours of the 9/11 attacks, these four were planning to use the attacks to justify a war on Iraq. It takes careful reading.

What they did and when they did it.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 05:37 PM

DG, that post (2:46 pm) was the most reasoned post of yours that I have seen. Keep writing like that and I'll be able to read you again.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 02:46 PM

I personally think we're mostly moderates. All of us. When we peel away our conditioning and brainwashing and personal and group fears, we're all reasonable. The Golden Rule. We want ours and can understand that other people want theirs.

But politicians and bankers and religions balkanize us so completely that we lose sight of the fact we all have more in common than we do in difference.

In the US, the Republican / Democrat paradigm is a perfect example. We're all compassionate, but we don't want to give 90% of what we worked for to the 'welfare state'. And we don't want to starve children through lack of social programs. The answer is somewhere in the middle. An answer we would probably all accept if given the choice.

But the power-brokering monied elite have divided us into two political camps. So we don't agree on anything, and meanwhile the fortunes continue to be made off armaments and insurance scams and pharmaceutical scams and corporate land-grabbing disguised as environmentalism while we are distracted.

Ron Paul is a medical doctor. A compassionate man. Yet he was a Libertarian (radical conservative) before he became a Republican. Became a Republican because there was no way in hell a 'third party' candidate could be elected in this district. And he has the most 'conservative' voting record in congress. He wants the Federal govt to do two things 1) deliver the mail and 2) provide a standing army to guard the borders. As the Constitution outlined.

And now he's saying his party, the Republicans, need to be overthrown. That statement is a Declaration of Independence. I'm afraid now he'll be Wellstoned before long.

The foreign interests which have seized the US through the Bush-backed CIA terrorist organization will NOT allow independent thinking. Small fry like myself aren't even on the radar yet, but Ron Paul is now in the crosshairs, I'd be willing to bet.

DG

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 02:24 PM

I posted THIS on another thread, but I think it's also relevant here. Click and wait for a couple of seconds.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 01:31 PM

Bias by Bernard Goldberg was mentioned above by several. I'm reading it now, and trying to keep an open mind. So far, I don't like him, (I always have several books from the library going at the same time so I'm not very far into it yet) but I'm trying to get over it so I can hear him.

(Remnds me of when I spent four years or so reading everything I could find on WWII, pre and post- war and I read a book by Hitler's doctor. The main thing I brought away from that book is that I didn't like the doctor. Mind you, I'm not equating Goldberg with him.)

I tend to think that liberals (in the American usage) are brighter, more empathic, more tolerant of diversity and better informed than the knee jerks, (Ha! Is my bias showing?) so that I'm pleased when it appears that some people in the news reporting field are liberal. Goldberg's thesis is that the bias is unconscious and arrogant in the sense of assuming that everybody agrees with them.

But Goldberg's mindset is a mean one. One of my least favorite lines so far is when he wrote something to the effect that the liberal newscasters think of conservatives as people "without teeth and who are dating their sisters." Not a man I would want to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 12:26 PM

Ron Paul is the US Congressman from my district, by the way. Most conservative in Congress, and though I don't agree with all he says, he has nailed the problem facing American politics today. The Republican party has been seized by socialists. Both major parties are moving toward big federal govt. There is no balance, no restraint.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 12:18 PM

Ron Paul's latest statement

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 17 May 03 - 10:38 AM

Just a few notes on the above.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Paraphrase of Heinlein (from Starship Troopers): 'The draft is incapable of instilling civic responsibility. It would be easier to restore sight to a blind man than to make a draftee [with no choice in his situation] feel responsible for the needs of others.' Consider that the military in Viet Nam was primarily a draftee force when fraggings and other indications of 'civil' disobedience took place.

If you wish to influence policy, get active, vote and get others to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: NicoleC
Date: 16 May 03 - 11:46 PM

You might read my post again, Doug.

If a person repeatedly states their position on a subject (as Powell did), then doesn't act in accordance with those statements (as he is doing), then yeah, I'd say it's awfully likely he's abandoned his principles for the sake of a job. Either that or lied about them in the first place, which seems less likely to me. Powell never struck me as a liar.

But you'll have to have the last word on this subject -- I'm off to Scotland in the monring :)

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 16 May 03 - 11:30 PM

DougR-It may be that he feels the need to remain in his post. I certainly wouldn't want another jingoistic neo-con with a superiority complex in the cabinet, though I doubt I'd be willing to suffer the indignity of working for Bush, and the ignominy of having my name forever associated with his, to prevent it.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: DougR
Date: 16 May 03 - 07:24 PM

Nicole: what leads you to believe that Powell has "abandoned his feelings?" You got a direct pipe into the Secretary of State of something? Did it ever occur to you that Powell is doing what he is doing because he believes it to be the right thing?

Powell doesn't need the job. If he was not happy doing what he is doing, he could get another less stressful job in a New York minute.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 May 03 - 02:03 PM

I read it, pdc, with a chill in my heart. Need to make sure poeple over on the Smoke and Mirrors thread know about it, too, imo.

I feel the same way about Powell. He's lost a lot of credibility, in my eyes at least.

The Democrats needed a LEADER, someone with a VOICE..isn't there anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 16 May 03 - 01:55 PM

I hope people have read the previous link above, "Rumsfeld's Doctor Strangelove," as I think it is crucially important.

Has anyone noticed that Powell often looks embarrassed?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: NicoleC
Date: 16 May 03 - 01:15 PM

I can only speak for mysef, but I think Powell's reputation has been considerably tarnished under the Bush administration. No doubt he's trying to do the right thing, but he has been pretty quick to abandon his own feelings of what is right. Part of that is his time in the military, I guess. And I still think he's probably the best of the lot in the current administration, but I'd probably no longer vote for him. And although our politics differ considerably, for a long time I would have voted for him anyway because I thought he was a thoughtful man of principle. Damn few of those get elected.

If he has abandoned those principles now, I am not so sure he really ever had them. If you won't stand up for what you believe when it counts -- what will you stand up for? That's not leadership.

Of course, give the typically weak crop of politicians anyway, if he did run I might still vote for him as the best choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Doug_Remley
Date: 16 May 03 - 12:47 AM

I'm at a loss. I've read all the links and just above dreaded guest stated no black will be President. I understand why Colin Powell will not run for an elected office, but I was quite impressed with him when we met under fire many years ago. I have not seen (maybe missed) his name in neo-Con literature or in opposing links. I have always sensed he was a good man, even joking about the outrageous amounts given for speaking, and I think world leaders listen to him despite the tindrum antics of our president (no, I will not capitalize the word). Have I missed something? This is an honest query.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Mark Clark
Date: 15 May 03 - 07:25 PM

Did anyone else post a link to Ben Tripp's piece The Other ‘F’ Word? Tripp makes a reasonable case that the U.S. Government should properly be termed a Facist one.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 May 03 - 05:17 PM

Good gawd, that's horrifying! When does it all stop? What in the world can we do, how do we galvanise the general public to wake up and take action? This was particularly chilling:

He (Payne) first made his mark with an article in the summer 1980 issue of Foreign Policy (written with fellow hawk Colin Gray) called "Victory Is Possible." Among its pronouncements: "an intelligent United States offensive [nuclear] strategy, wedded to homeland defenses, should reduce U.S. casualties to approximately 20 million … a level compatible with national survival and recovery." (As Gen. Buck Turgidson, the George C. Scott character in Dr. Strangelove, put it, "I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed up, but 10-20 million tops, depending on the breaks.")

And, as it points out, he is even more in that line of thinking nowadays. I'm telling you we need a revolution!

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 15 May 03 - 04:52 PM

Don, I think that a good definition of "insane" is one who cannot or does not fit into the world around them. Therefore, consider that the inmates may well be the sane ones these days.

But that article is scary, isn't it? Nukes in the hands of these warmongering weirdos?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 03 - 04:28 PM

The inmates are in charge of the asylum!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 15 May 03 - 03:12 PM

I'm posting this link on more than one thread, as I think it is extremely important, and frightening.

Rumsfeld's Doctor Strangelove

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 May 03 - 02:50 PM

Don, thank you for all of your links and for your very clearly stated and learned take on things. Much appreciated.

As for labels, I've recently seen them referred to as the "HardRight" and I like that; it makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 15 May 03 - 01:32 PM

Don, I believe it has happened here.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 03 - 12:44 PM

One of the darkest periods in human history occurred during the 1930s and 1940s.

Starting this Sunday and concluding on Tuesday, CBS is airing a TV mini-series entitled Hitler: The Rise of Evil. Considering that a couple of institutions are issuing study guides on this mini-series, I assume that some effort was made to keep it historically accurate. For those who need a history lesson, or for those who were alive during that period (there are a few of us here) and may benefit from a reminder, I recommend they watch this.

Then ask yourself:— could something like that happen here?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: TIA
Date: 12 May 03 - 10:15 PM

Nope, happened way more recently than tha FL. Jimmy Carter was intelligent and good. Overwhelmed by the job and events, but absolutely intelligent and good.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 12 May 03 - 09:16 PM

Many people who want to be president are good, intelligent people. Those who actually stand a chance at getting there may be one or the other, but Lincoln was the last I can think of to be both.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 03 - 07:17 PM

I think anyone who wants to be President must have a screw loose. Which, methinks, explains a lot about our "Fearless Leaders."   

I also think that one could nominate Mother Theresa for the job, and there would be someone out there who would manage to dig up some dirt on her. That's politics.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 03 - 05:36 PM

Good one, Kim! :-) But don't hold your breath on that...there ARE women that stupid out there. Not many, admittedly, but...

Lotta good stuff on this thread. Pity I have to practice music right now. Maybe I'll get back to it later.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Kim C
Date: 12 May 03 - 03:56 PM

We might could have a woman President, if there was a woman stupid enough to actually WANT the job...

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 12 May 03 - 03:52 PM

No black will ever be appointed Pres of the US. A hispanic maybe, given demographics and lighter skin coloration. Most people still vote on cosmetics, and though votes are meaningless at the national level now, folks would rebel if the appointed Pres wasn't at least whitish.

And we HAVE reached the point where votes at the national level don't matter. VNS (voters news service) folded last year after committing it's final election frauds in 2002 (their frauds helped get us to the point of the 'electronic alternative', and now their old methods are no longer needed). Through the practice of creating false expectations with exit polls on election day, and psychologically softening us up for appointees rather than electees, and then assisting in vote counting, VNS succeeded in putting all branches of govt in the hands of one party and then folded before investigations occurred to people. Could just have easily have been the Democrats seizing power, but the country seems to feel more comfortable with the phony 'conservatives' in charge. But the Dems will have their turn in a diversionary appointment...and H. Clinton will be built up by the press as the preferred choice to whatever intentional loser the Reps run in 2008. Unless the plan is changed and the 22nd Amendment is scrapped, then we'll be watching GW 'landing planes' on flightdecks as Commander in Chief when he's as old as Reagan.

And there is no place to run. That's why the CIA/MI-6 folks bombed Bali. Symbolic. Trouble in Paradise. They killed the Weavers in the isolation of Idaho (message = 'you can't isolate yourself'), they murdered the Branch Davidians in Waco (message = 'you can't band together and fight us'), and they bombed paradise. The only place to run is to your city council. Demand ALL sessions take place in public, carry video cameras and pin the weasels in your lens finder every chance you get, and remind them that federal money for electronic voting machines (along with advice on how to steal re-election) WILL come back to haunt their children in the form of concentration camps. Works wonders. And forward story links to uninformed 'editorialists'. There's too much info on the internet, and it's incredible what some of the 'informed' people are unaware of.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 03 - 01:25 PM

Carol Moseley Braun was accused once of misuse of campaign funds, but the accusers didn't have sufficient evidence to follow through [". . . possibly misappropriated $249,000 in campaign expenses, though no criminal charges were ever filed. . . ."]. She was also criticized for visiting the heads of state of Nigeria and Zaire, on the basis that these heads of state were dictators. As I understand it, she was in the diplomatic corps at the time, and such visits were part of her job. Also, someone accused her of sexual harassment--but not the person she was supposed to have harassed. This was in the middle of a political campaign, at a time when such accusations were a very popular method of trying to discredit an opposing candidate--once again, the accusers didn't follow through.

It's one thing to accuse. But it's a whole different thing to prove an allegation. The efficacy of accusation as a tool of political assassination is that when the accusation is made, its on page one. When it's disproven, it's on page twelve. All that many people seem to remember is that the target was accused, and that seems to be enough for them to write the person off. Patently dirty politics. An accusation is not proof of guilt. And, for that matter, for a political candidate not to be accused of something means their opposition probably doesn't consider them much of a challenge.

Okay, so other than unproved allegations, what baggage?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Beccy
Date: 12 May 03 - 08:54 AM

Woah- hold on a sec... Do you really think Carol Mosely Braun has no political baggage???

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 03 - 01:12 PM

I'm not convinced that things are that hopeless—yet. If I were, I would be making plans to move to another country.

Maybe I missed it, but how did Hillary Clinton* get involved? I think she does have presidential ambitions, but I'm not really that sure that she would ever get nominated. I personally think that Carol Mosely Braun has a better chance, in that she doesn't carry any particular baggage (in fact, I don't think she'd be bad at all). There are a couple of other Democratic candidates who have emerged so far who have also displayed a promising amount of backbone, and one can hope. It remains to be seen.

On the matter of electronic voting, I share your misgivings. Too darned easy to diddle. This is why we definitely need our votes to be committed to something physical, tangible, and permanently verifiable—like paper.

Curious. You've pointed out what you feel is wrong. What are your suggestions as to how to make it right?

Don Firth

*Perhaps she plans to give the coming election a pass (I don't recall how long she'll be in her current office, but I think she made a promise that she would stay the course and not run for another office until her term was finished) and probably has her eye on the 2008 Presidential election. If one feels strong antipathy toward Hillary, I really wouldn't worry about it. There is an old story about a man who was condemned to the block who told the king that if he spared his life for a year, he would teach the king's horse to talk. The king laughed and said, "Aren't you just postponing the inevitable? Do you really think you can teach a horse to talk?" The condemned man answered, "Who knows? A lot can happen in a year. I might die of natural causes. Or you might die and your successor might set me free. Or—the horse might actually learn to talk!"

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 11 May 03 - 09:54 AM

I agree partly, Don, but is the answer to GW's explosive expansion of govt Hillary Clinton? She said Homeland Security was a good idea, but it needed to be more controlled. That means an even BIGGER bureaucracy. This is a bait and switch game, and every time we're distracted with 'conservative' or 'liberal', we're drawn a little closer to the trap. Both extremes ultimately want tyranny, so I see no hope in either party. And if Americans don't come up with a better plan, then the appointment of 'glorious leaders' is what's in store for us.

At the local level, all of us can fight against electronic voting. That's fundamental. Once they pre-program your vote counting, it's all over. Turn your vote into an electron, and it's gone. The Feds are going to 'assist' communities with 'solving' their voting problems by giving money, and the locals are going to jump at it. The Feds don't give a damn right now about local elections, but once the electronic machines are in, an extra 10 or 20% can be diverted to the Senatorial and Presidential races as needed. We'll never have another naturally-elected national leader again. And look at what Organized Crime has done by buying off just two offices in the federal govt (Pres and Vice Pres). Once all the Senators are pre-determined, too, we're dead. Literally.

So no electronic voting. That's my big local crusade. I suggest the same for everyone else. Even if your party is in power right now locally, don't think electronic voting will benefit you. It'll be the death of America.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 03 - 06:29 PM

GUEST, if you look into the histories of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rove, etc., I think you'll find that they've been conservatives all along. It's only within the last dozen years or so that they've revealed that they're not just consevatives, they are far right conservatives--somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan. Granted, when it comes to tyranny, to the average citizen it makes little difference whether the tyrant is a communist or a fascist. I think this kind of sub rosa maneuvering you're postulating oozes right back down into the swamp of ding-a-ling conspiracy theories. If you invent bogey-men and cook up fictions instead of looking at the real world, you stand no chance of ever acting in a manner that might help counter the pig's breakfast the government is making of things. The real problem is the wimpish and gutless "Me too! Me too!" stance of the Democratic Party within recent years. What one needs to do is get involved in the Democratic Party, yell your head off, and if necessary, grab them by the nose and haul them kicking and screaming in the direction they need to go. What a lot of American voters really want is a genuine alternative, not the Tweedledum and Tweedledumber alternatives they've been offered in recent elections.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 03 - 03:15 PM

Smoot backed up his arguments with legislation #'s and so on. Sharp guy. Limbaugh is just Clear Channel's mouthpiece. The guy registered to vote when he was 35. He doesn't have a true political conviction in his head.

And even the mainstream is now pointing out how the neo-cons are 'former' liberals. They have to admit SOME of the truth or be revealed for complete liars. Snap out of it. It's all about extremism and tyranny. The far left was stymied under Clinton and jumped to the far right. Now we're in for a roller-coaster of 4 more years of GW, then 8 years of Hillary, then 8 years of Jeb. All of them extremists. And all of them will be appointed because of electronic voting. 100,000 votes disappeared in Jeb's last election ('Damn we're glad we got rid of those hanging chads'), and now the electrons can't be traced. Our current Constitution will be destroyed and written out of the history books within 25 years. A communist 'constitution' will be panned off as the thing Jefferson et al wrote, and our 'glorious leaders' will be 'elected' with 100% of the vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: leprechaun
Date: 10 May 03 - 02:43 PM

I know, Don. I do confess I intended it as a cheap shot. Maybe all three of us can form a co-op and get a hell of a deal on our meds.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 10 May 03 - 02:22 PM

And as I mentioned in another thread, the Project for a New American Century is (I suspect) more in the interests of big business -- transnationals, etc., than anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 03 - 02:15 PM

Yes, the Dan Smoot Report was one of the items that cluttered up our mailbox.

There are those whose little hearts are made gleeful when they think they have inside knowledge of conspiracies about which the rest of the country is blythely ignorant ("I know something you don't know, nyah na na na nyah na!!"). And for those given to such conspiracy theories, if they take certain superficialities as significant, it's easy to assume some connection between the sort of thing Dan Smoot and his confréres were peddling and what's going on today in the Bush Administration. It would be a coup for the conspiracy theorists to establish that Smoot & Co. were some kinds of prophets. But the truth is that Smoot, etc., like Rush Limbaugh and his bunch today, had their pet hates, but when it came right down to it, that's all they had. They didn't have any special knowledge, although they claimed they did (but like Bush with Saddam's WMDs, when asked to produce the proof, they changed the subject). Smoot made a good living with his newsletter and his radio commentaries (like Limbaugh's, except he didn't take call-ins) and got a lot of ego stroking from the gullible. But all he was really doing was blowing smoke out of both ends.

Neo-conservatives are not liberals who have seen the light, repented of their sins, and converted to conservatism, à la "nouveau riche." They are a new brand of conservative, and they would not necessarily be approved of by the old brand—Goldwater, Buckley, etc. The neo-conservatives and their goals have no connection with "Illuminati" type conspiracies, although when pushed to the wall, neo-conservatives will admit that domination of the world is the ultimate goal—but only for the greater benefit of the world, of course. It would be hard to classify the Project for the New American Century as a conspiracy in the usual sense, because it is so overt, even having its own web site. If anybody hasn't looked at it yet, they should, by all means, do so. There are links above, or it can be looked up with google. It's easy to find

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 03 - 11:05 AM

Sounds like you may have received the Dan Smoot Report at one time, Don. Conservative commentator in the 50's and 60's. He was on-target most of the time, from the old newsletters I've read...he used to mail out 'the Dan Smoot Report'. And hell yes various groups plan to take over the world. Or that's the way it used to be, in simpler times. Now they've just created a vast Organized Crime syndicate for the final push. They'll divide up the spoils later. The Rockefellers and lots of other banking families are in on it, as are the churches, the mafia...any old bureaucracy and some of the newer ones you can think of. Money pools, and it is now in the hands of a very few people indeed. Half of the new 'anti-terrorism' laws give the US govt the power to wage financial war against competitors (like cowboys in Colombia who are raising cocaine without the 'protection' of the Bush Cocaine Cartel). And 'conservatives' in America are about to wake up to find the Constitution gone because it was bad for business. Hardly a conspiracy in any of that. It's happening. And being posted, too. The revolution isn't being televised, it's being posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Beccy
Date: 10 May 03 - 09:06 AM

Argh, TIA- what the hell kind of article was that???? That's not from "my" paleo-con school of thought. I'm more the Bill Buckley type (minus the yachts, cigars and propensity to smoke cigars- I mean intellectually.) That sounded creepy!

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: TIA
Date: 09 May 03 - 04:56 PM

Here's some thread convergence...I just found an article on

Paleocon Pusallanimity

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 03 - 04:47 PM

Just to be clear about this, leprechaun, I've taken a fair amount of philosophy in school, including a couple of courses in logic. The formal study of logic equips one with a wonderful bullshit detector: the list of logical fallacies, bearing impressive sounding Latin names given them by the scholars of yesteryear who identified and codified them. I've noted that one of the favorite ones of the right wing is the argumentum ad hominem. The way this fallacy attempts to work is as follows: no matter how cogent a statement or argument is, the attempt is to attack and discredit the person making the statement or argument. Such things as slapping on a label ("Well, naturally you'd say that. You're a liberal!") or implying mental incompetence ("Didn't you take your meds today?") or any of a number of other attempts to divert attention from the argument itself. A particularly popular one these days is to accuse someone of being "un-American" or "unpatriotic" if they are, in any way, critical of the Bush Administration. To the naïve, this may seem to be a refutation, but it is not. It has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the argument, and it leaves the argument unanswered. In short, it attacks the person and ducks the issue.

I have always been suspicious of conspiracy theories. When I was a teenager, my father somehow managed to get himself on some kook's mailing list. Every month or so, he would receive circulars and newsletters in the mail, warning us that the Rockefeller family was plotting to take over the world, or that the Freemasons were plotting to take over the world, or that aliens were plotting to take over the world, or the Catholics were plotting to take over the world, or the Jews were plotting to take over the world, or—just name some individual or group that you hate, for whatever reason—were plotting to take over the world. These rags included such things as warnings of deep-laid plots about how fluoridating our drinking water was a plot, hatched up by any number of plotters (they never seemed to be able to agree on exactly who it was) to soften our brains and make us docile slaves, and so on, and so on, and blah blah blah. All of these newsletters wound up in the round file along with the other junk mail, but once in a while Dad and I read through the stuff and tried to figure out just who these yo-yoes were and why they were spewing out this tripe. The best we could come up with was that they were poor, paranoid, hate-filled souls with too much time on their hands who were trying to find some meaning in their otherwise pathetic lives. In short, real sickos. So any time a conspiracy theory comes along, my skepticism (admittedly, approaching closed-mindedness regarding anything that smacks of conspiracy) comes partly as the result of my being inoculated early on. So whenever I hear of—or see evidence of—something that could be construed as a conspiracy, it has to pass a number of pretty rigid tests before I'll give it any credence.

One thing that makes it pretty hard to deny that a conspiracy is in progress is when those who are allegedly involved are plainly visible and they come right out on their own web site and say that this is what they are doing—and you can see the evidence of it in the daily news. It's right there for anyone to verify for themselves. Go look!

A distinct difference between me and Dreaded Guest is that I put links to my sources so that people can read them for themselves and make up their own minds. And, unlike Dreaded Guest, I don't insult and vilify those with divergent viewpoints and insist that if they don't agree with me, they are "brainwashed." Nor, for that matter, do I suggest that they need to renew their prescription to Prozac.

As I said above: cheap shot.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 May 03 - 03:17 PM

Doug-I tried to be neutral. My personal feeling is that it's jingoism of the highest order.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 03 - 02:18 PM

See what I mean, leprechaun?

Don Firth