I think Monkeybiscuit has hit the nail on the head here. It seems that the Democrats have drifted further to the left then normal and the Republicans seem to be filling the void the Democrats left behind. For example, Republicans promoting/supporting the passage of a high-budget, prescription drug program for the eldery is unthinkable a few years ago.

It seems that neocons (God I hate that term - reminds me too much of neonazi) are Big Government conservatives as well.

Key difference between the neocons of the Reagan era and the Bush era is that the Reagan neocons actually had a country that was a match for us militarily (USSR). Bush neocons will only pick fights with 3rd world countries.
No way in hell they will start some crap with China.

estream. great writing. you rock my world.

Hmmn. So according to the article, apparently neocons are gamblers, using world peace and the lives of our soldiers and citizens as stakes.

I don't think those are the kind of people I really want running the government.

Here, children, I'll break it down.

Old conservatism: Saddam Hussein invades a country we'll call K. In response to this act of war, George Bush I acts to maintain Mideast stability by suavely assembling an international coalition and driving Saddam's army back into Iraq, allowing for him to be contained.

New conservatism: Because Saudi terrorists attacked us, George Bush II tries to convince everyone to disarm Iraq. When no one really wants to, he attacks anyway. Richard Perle is shortly seen dancing around writing editorials with names like "Thank God for the death of the U.N.!"

This is called "unilateralism." Notice the different attitude towards international treaties. I'm just saying.

The problem with "benevolent," invincible worldwide hegemonies stomping all over every country they don't agree with is--sooner or later, they stop being "benevolent" and just become invincible totalitarian monsters.

The Cold War was actually a good thing--it kept the U.S. honest. By contrasting ourselves against the obviously oppressive Soviet Union and showcasing our freedoms, America improved. Now without an adversary, left to its own devices, the U.S. runs a serious risk of becoming more and more Soviet-like. The neocons' ultimate dream, drawn to its true conclusion, would eventually have the U.S a totalitarian state, with them wielding absolute power, and the rest of the world groveling at their feet for their very survival.

It's times like this when I begin to be glad we have a 2nd amendment. We may need it after all.

We spend as much on military as the rest of the world combined. Looks like a fair fight. Too fair. We better nuke them all before even the U.K. turns against us.

Sure looks as though history is repeating itself again. Near as I can tell every government that is "by the people" be it Republic or Democracy or what have you ends up as an Empire Builder.

The problem with empires is they just don't last. They provoke too much hatred from both the peoples they conquor and the ones left in the cold.

Conspiracy much? or do you just blame liberals for everything you dislike until proven otherwise?

This must be one of those "rare" times when a liberal makes a good point, eh sitesmithscott?

KazamaSmokers:

"Uh... Bildo.. you're not originally from Mass., are you?"

No, I've lived in Texas my whole life.

snarf-snarf:

"get a grip, man -- neocons called themselves that. they call themselves that because they are NOT traditional conservatives (which means isolationist, cut taxes, cut spending, stop immigration, etc)."

I grew up under Reagan. I have known no other kind of conservative. I wasn't attacking libs (this time) I was just asking a question that I didn't know the answer to. I've since read the entire article and it answered the question. No reason to get your panties in a wad.

"George W Bush is a neocon, but his father is a conservative. His father's goal was to get as little involved in foreign affairs as possible (George Washington's warning, remember? i doubt it.). George W's goal is to be as involved as possible and using our strength to strong-arm the world into the mold we envision for it."

Actually his father was far more experienced and effective in foriegn policy. He was U.S. ambassador to the UN and the first U.S. ambassador to China. Bush Sr was very good at diplomacy. The current President Bush never wanted to get into the business of nation building, but 9-11 changed all of that.

"Conspiracy much? or do you just blame liberals for everything you dislike until proven otherwise?"

No, I think most conspiracy theories are juvenile. I just don't like liberals. :-)

Death is preferable to a dictatorship (or "hegemony" if you're into euphemistic word-play) of any color.

"I like how they fail to mention democrats wanting to oust Saddam during the 90's. Remember 5 years ago when all the naysayers of today were screaming about saddam?"

Yeah and I like how they failed to mention that guys like Ashcroft and Tom Delay fiercely opposed those attmpts. Remember 5 years ago when all of todays cheerleaders were naysaysers? Oh wait you mean both sides are hypocrites?

See, it doesn't even make sense. Last I checked, "conservative" meant "opposed to change."

"Neoconservative" = "New" + "Opposed to change"

Oxymoron much?

Here's an idea that just came to me. Neocons want to forcibly do to other countries what Liberals would like to do at home peaceably. That sounds more like it.(says the self-described moderate)

A handy guide to understanding the psychotic neocons who have seized the reigns of American power?

How about a handy guide to spelling? It's "reins." Someone should create a book or something, that's got all the words in it and how to spell them. That'd be cool.

ShutUpHippies
If by "seized the reigns of American power" means "voted into a majority by the American citizens," then you would be right.

Unlike Bush, Hitler won the popular vote.

estream:

Damn, estream. Less than forty posts into the thread and you invoke Godwins Law? What a dipshiat.

"I like how they fail to mention democrats wanting to oust Saddam during the 90's. Remember 5 years ago when all the naysayers of today were screaming about saddam?"

at least they didnt follow through and actually invaded the country just to have troops die for a pointless cause

oh good, the christian science monitor, a bastion of nonbiased publications.

I know it's already been said, but it bears repeating. The CSMonitor is one of the least bias news sources around. Those of you who are actually interesting in something other than flamewars might want to bookmark it.

The Cold War was actually a good thing--it kept the U.S. honest.

Ha. We destroyed democracies and installed dictatorships to fight the bugaboo communism. Now we're doing the same against the bugaboo terrorism.

The game is to find a Gulf of Tonkin or a 9/11, Maine, or Lusitania and the voters are stupid enough to completely surrender to the profiteers who "have our best interests at heart".

Control-

Wow, it's rare that I'm out-lefted.

Well, being a "neocon" myself, I will say that I would beat the living piss out of apologizing, Castro-d-ckriding, mocha-loving, illogical Chomskysheep if it were socially acceptable.

Quagmire! Vietnam! Quagmire! Let's defend Saddam Hussein and make excuses for bin Laden!

Haha...ya'll are fools.

Bildo:

If 40 threads was too soon, how deep into the thread should one wait? And, does this mean the thread is over? We better let the rest of the farkers know...

blahpers:

"Last I checked, "conservative" meant "opposed to change.""

I've always felt it meant conservative (meaning less) government.

lukeduff:

"Unlike Bush, Hitler won the popular vote."

No he didn't, he was appointed Chancellor by German President Hindenburg. After that he outlawed all political parties except the national socialists.

After 9/11 we surrendered.

We surrendered and let Enron and WorldComm get away w/ zero prison time.

We let Cheney and the "Energy Task Force" manipulate an energy crisis in California, and we won't even demand he turn over minutes to the meetings.

We let the Pentagon throw kids age 13 and 14 into prison at Guantanamo. No trials. No hearings.

We let the White House lie to us that the air around Wall Street was safe to breathe. "Get back to work." "Go buy something." That's what Bush said. So we surrendered and did just that.

We let Ashcroft arrest Tommy Chong for selling a bong. Tommy frickin Chong.

We surrendered tons more.

Jeez. The neocons won.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our NUMBER ONE priority and we will not rest until we find him!" G.W. Bush-September 13,2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea. It's not that important. It's not our priority." G.W. Bush-March 13, 2002

Bildo FYI

Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual

In accordance with OSHA Regulations:

control, great post.

I didn't realize about Tommy Chong, that's really sad.

censorship_is_wrong

Do you really believe that crap or are you just brown-nosing for Ann Coulter again?

estream:

It is always too soon to invoke Godwins Law.

I pretty sure that this debate ended long before it began. Nobody's mind is going to change because of a flamewar on Fark.

Fark is powerfull, but it ain't that powerfull.

SlangstonHughes said "Well, being a "neocon" myself, I will say that I would beat the living piss out of apologizing, Castro-d-ckriding, mocha-loving, illogical Chomskysheep if it were socially acceptable."


You'd have to get permission from your trailorpark landlord first.

SlangstonHughes Well, being a "neocon" myself, I will say that I would beat the living piss out of apologizing, Castro-d-ckriding, mocha-loving, illogical Chomskysheep if it were socially acceptable.

...who are the illogical ones?

Corn_Fed: The neocons' ultimate dream, drawn to its true conclusion, would eventually have the U.S a totalitarian state, with them wielding absolute power, and the rest of the world groveling at their feet for their very survival.

Interesting.

Not a single neo-con that I've talke to or read feels that way.

The story doesn't describe neo-cons that way.

Tell me about your Bizzaro World, Corn_Fed.

GEAH:

Don't bother asking. The left's paranoia has no boundaries.

Corn_Fed: You'd have to get permission from your trailorpark landlord first.

I live in the Bronx, son. Good luck finding a trailer park there.

Feetsza: ...who are the illogical ones?

Suffice to say they can add you to their roster, for nothing else than the inability to discern humour from partisan circle-jerks.

I'm a neo-moderate:


(I just quietly sit in the corner trying to muffle my laughs as I roast marshmellows around the fire"...mmm...smores.

GEAH

Nice to see you here. The story didn't say that. But it sure as hell impliedd it. Can you see any other ending? Perhaps we all die before that happens?

paradroid: Here, children, I'll break it down.

Old conservatism: Saddam Hussein invades a country we'll call K. In response to this act of war, George Bush I acts to maintain Mideast stability by suavely assembling an international coalition and driving Saddam's army back into Iraq, allowing for him to be contained.

It also allowed Saddam to rape, torture and murder the people of Iraq along with his sons, Roofus and Doofus, with 100% impunity.

I'll bet you feel real good about that.

2003-08-27 10:01:09 PM sitesmithscott


*Sigh* No one learns from history. The best way for a country to survive is to be more powerful militarily than the rest. Liberal also fail to realize stuff cost money and if they want those social programs paid for, that someone is going to have to pay for it. California learned this. They also forget who pays all the axes - the people that have stuff. The people that have stuff are conservatives because everything is working out for them and they don't want change. The people that want change are the ones that don't have anything - go figure. The ones that don't have anything want the ones that do to give it to them. Now why would they do that?

Ok, then explain Canada to me? They have more social programs than us, a small military, and no one hates them.

The problem is with the language of our debate in many ways. Conservative or Liberal means 10 different things to 10 different people, and neither is truly applicable to the republicans or the democrats. If you were to convert our political debate to mathematics, I would say that the republicans and democrats could not differ by more than 5 percent. But a third party won't work because it's the true liberals and conservatives who are shut out by the 2 major parties. So actually we need a 3rd AND a 4th party, with the corresponding weakening of the 2 major parties we have right now.

GEAH-

Perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough, when I said "drawn to its true conclusion." I don't believe the Neocons want absolute totalitarianism. By the same token, Marx would not have recongnized his conception of communism in the Soviet Union. But extremist ideas always have a way of spiralling out of control. If you set up an all-powerful, invincible super-power answerable to no one, and capable of destroying any adversary at will, how long do you think it would take before any "benevolancy" become corrupted?

GonzoThinker:

Anymore marshmallows? I dropped mine in the fire. :)

GEAH Did you even read the article?? The neocon "leadership" has state outright that they wish the US to be an unopposed "global hegemon". That's what THEY are saying, not "the Liberals"...

Neocons: Kids who played too much Risk.

Lefties: Kids who played too much Operation.

Fundies: Kids who weren't allowed to play anything.

SlangstonHughes
Suffice to say they can add you to their roster, for nothing else than the inability to discern humour from partisan circle-jerks.

I would think that being overly logical would be a detriment to understanding humour, not the other way around.

I wish to say that I've always heard a certain lyric in "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who as "The party on the left is now departing on the right". That's not quite correct, but I think it's actually more accurate than the way Roger Daltrey sang it.

It also allowed Saddam to rape, torture and murder the people of Iraq along with his sons, Roofus and Doofus, with 100% impunity.

I'll bet you feel real good about that.

Yeah, they're MUCH better off now that peace and stability is the order of the day in Iraq.

I'll bet you feel real good about that.

I'm sorry, newmoonpuppyhead, it seems you didn't bother to read the end of the story. They wrap it up nicely, and any extra-story conclusions you jump to are your own delusions.

I think the article was fair and accurate.

Some said the "neo-cons" would complain about it.

Where are the complaints?

Ok, then explain Canada to me? They have more social programs than us, a small military, and no one hates them.

Uh, maybe because they're NATO, allied with the US?