Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
Conservatism, at least in the U.S., used to conjure up descriptors such as small government, fiscally responsibe, business friendly, and moral values. This is being generous, since the word also brought to mind other descriptors such as racism, militarism, corporatism, and wiretaps. Hmmm, in terms of the negative characteristics, very little has changed.
Anyway, Conservatism first mutated into cancer starting with the Reagan years, grew larger during the Gingrich days, and now under the Bush Administration threatens to completely replace the old Conservatism and metastasize into every aspect of our once private lives. That's "Neo" Conservatism - not neoplasia - but it's cancer all the same. I believe today, as is so clearly reflected by much of the stuff posted as conservative philosophy on this site, that Neoconservatism can be summed up pretty easily. Mankind can rise to magnificent heights and sink to incredible lows. Neoconservatism is a philosophy of government that takes for granted that all mankind will act to their basest instincts, and that all laws should reflect this.
The poor will cheat on welfare . . . eliminate it.
People are lazy . . . f**k them if disaster strikes.
The enemy always lies . . . bomb 'em back to the stone age.
Civilians are killed . . . they're probably insurgents.
We tortured prisoners . . . most of them are terrorists.
You don't like wiretaps . . . what are you hiding?
No pledge of allegiance . . . you're a Commie.
No Bible . . . you're a sinner.
Critical thinker . . . intellectual with an elitist agenda.
Well gang of Neocons, am I close to your world view?
Liberals do not believe that our system of government should assume the worst of human nature. We do not legislate with the idea that you are guilty until proven innocent. We do not accept the idea that we are all born of original sin. That's stuff for the Bible, not our Constitution.
Neither do liberals naively assume that bad people don't exist. We know our freedoms are enjoyed by good men and abused by the bad. We know that a free society must be cognizant of enemies from within and without, and our laws must be thoughtful enough to protect us from them without undermining the very freedoms that make our society worth protecting.
Neoconservatives aren't bothered too much by the erosion of Constitutional freedoms. They don't mind laws that codify their hate for people they consider their inferiors. If innocent people suffer under their spite, c'est la vie. Oh sorry, that's French. Que sera, sera. No, that's not cool either with Neocons. F**k 'em!
O.K., am I close?
A Brief and Ugly Stare at Neoconservatism
|
Posted By: www.MoronInCharge.com Posted on: Jun. 17, 2006 at 6:15 PM  43 Comments
|
3.7 / 5
Based on 12 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Jun. 18, 2006 at 11:53:31 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| “We know that a free society must be cognizant of enemies from within and without, and our laws must be thoughtful enough to protect us from them without undermining the very freedoms that make our society worth protecting.” Well put, MoronInCharge. I couldn’t have said so well myself. And I don’t think you, indie or any of the rest of the rational contributors to VofA dare turn their backs on this greatest peril from within that has metastasized since the 2000 coronation. Bravo. You and indie did a fine job, and gave us new food for thought. indi616’s article ‘Conservatism or Aristocracy?’ at [link:www.voiceofarizona.com] is an excellent complementary article to yours. The NeoCoNazis really have inverted the meaning of the language to serve their own evil purposes. I wonder how long it will take for the Average American to wake up and smell the coffee? Don’t hold your breath for the “mindless proletariat” of which Orwell speaks to awaken any time soon. He worships at “the Ministry of Truth” on Faux News and will not be turned there from by reality. There are too many Notsees out there yet who simply will Not See the truth, no matter what. The good news is that their numbers are dwindling fast, and they do still serve a useful purpose as a whetstone for the many rational contributors here at VofA. Stay the course, you NotSees. |
||
|
Jun. 18, 2006 at 12:20:52 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Perhaps the cons should be renamed the (irr)rationalization party.
|
||
|
Jun. 18, 2006 at 12:35:03 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| I feel like some of those things are true about Conservatism.That is why I don't agree with Conservatism right down to the wire. But some of those things can and have been said by any from both sides. Depends on how conforming you are. I have a real hard time with people that think they don't have to adhere to any basic beliefs of this great country(the Bible, the Flag, Pledge of allegiance), without the Libs getting in to this ungodly interpretation they have that people's rights are being taken away. That adhering to what this Country stands for is an abomination of their rights and they will forever question anything and everything because of that so called "slippery slope". That sucks big time why this is occurring. All it does is create constant turmoil and an overall, perpetual lingering of their perception their rights are being assaulted. That sucks too. One of the real big problems with the Libs is they always seem to have this cure for everything. What is it? Talking about the days of Clinton where there was a surplus? That will never happen again. No set of economic incentives and formulas were ever in place before Clinton and will never be in place again. The times are not conducive to any kind of economic grand workings such as then. Many things would have to totally turn around and there would have to be another revolutionary catalyst such as the computer technology industry which mushroomed everything else. The bottom line is this: Liberals don't have a plan. They just chastize Bush about his high deficits because of Iraq but the fact is, with their notion of throwing money at everything, there would be just as high of a deficit as with Bush now. This is the thing some of us know but because Bush is in a contradictory position about fiscal conservatism Libs feed off of it but they wouldn't do a dang bit better. That's a fact JACK. 1. The poor will cheat on welfare . . . eliminate it. People are lazy . . . f**k them if disaster strikes. 2. The enemy always lies . . . bomb 'em back to the stone age. 3.Civilians are killed . . . they're probably insurgents. 4.We tortured prisoners . . . most of them are terrorists. 5.You don't like wiretaps . . . what are you hiding? 6.No pledge of allegiance . . . you're a Commie. 7.No Bible . . . you're a sinner. 8.Critical thinker . . . intellectual with an elitist agenda. 1. The poor have always cheated on welfare. Not all but some. This is not a new thing. Happens on both sides. 2. I don't recall anyone saying F*#@ them if disaster strikes. Things went wrong. 3. In war time? What is the credibility of that statement? You think the insurgents follow any rules? 4. No, insurgents plant themselves among civilians. Brave huh? Something US Marines would never do anywhere. That's ok with Libs though the insurgents have proven themselves time after time to be more cold and heartless than the most evil American soldier. 5. I don't have anything to hide and I think it is despicable that people who would like to subvert this Country can gain sympathy from Libs or anyone when they do have something to hide. 6. A basic symbolic gesture of support for America which has nothing to do with demonizing anyone's religion otherwise or takes anything away from them. 7. Who said that? Certainly not the Jehovah's Witnesses here this morning, or the LDS across the street. That's stretching a mindset to the highest stratosphere. We all have different ideas and different ways of praying and believing. 8. Are you talking about co-incidental happenings turning in to full fledged conspiracies? Are you talking about taking what someone says and transforming it in to something else? Like Air America and Bill O'Reilly does for example? |
||
|
|
Jun. 18, 2006 at 12:46:11 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| L and C, You write here and in previous posts that Libs only want to throw money at every problem. How about THESE FACTS JACK; If you look at the debt starting with Truman’s term (and remove Roosevelt’s WWII debt) the difference between the two parties contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946 the Democratic Presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.7% per year when they were in office. The Republican Presidents stay at an average increase of 9.3% per year. Over the last 59 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by almost a three to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87. Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and spending government really has gone out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republican Presidents. Looking at the only Democratic President since 1981, Mr. Clinton, who raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year; the Republican Presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.59. Any way you look at it Conservative Republican Presidents can not control government spending. |
||
|
Jun. 18, 2006 at 01:32:54 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Moron, L&C is a Republican, they don't care for facts. Faux News and Rushbo told him that libs are spenders. That's all that counts... By the way, Geo Dubya is incompetent. |
||
|
|
Jun. 18, 2006 at 02:22:31 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Am not a Republican. I don't go down the same route on everything. I don't hate George Bush. He IS incompetent. I pick out things all Republican or all Democrat and I wonder: How can people be all these things right down to the letter when so many different perspectives of right and wrong can be had for all. Your figures perpetuate a time span of many years where many things could be factored in don't you think? I think, everyone knows, that if it weren't for FDR's work programs(many thought he did some things maybe not on the up and up), but if it weren't for him, this Country would not have recovered and some of his programs serve as a model today for preserving society. Now what Repos and Dems do with it is another thing. Social Security was never intended to include all the programs it is including now. How's that for a Republican? Now you take your figures and try to apply them to situations such as the 50's and 60's where factory jobs could be had anytime, where the world market and a dollar a day wages in China competing with us weren't even a factor, where America was the leader in technology for cars(can't say that now), and where America's economy was internal. There were no trade deficits to produce negative numbers. I don't look at statistics for anything unless I look at the mitigating circumstances surrounding an occurrence. Such as, what was going on during the Presidents terms requiring more borrowing, who the Senators and Republicans were and how much pork was involved, what happened with inflation, any wars going on(now that will take some numbers up high) etc? I don't take a number and just say point blank: Well, the Demos borrowed more money or the Repos outspent on a particular year. Case closed. NO, it can and has gone deeper than that. Just like I will never comprehend or ever accept the idea that Clinton mushroomed the economy when all the desirable traits were in place and even Pee Wee Herman could have had a good econmy. But there it is on Randi Rhoads on Air America every time about how Clinton had a surplus and blah, blah, blah. My time is very valuable and I don't have time to worry over petty little details of the National Debt unless someone can break it down in to all the tiny factors during each president's term which would justify or not justify(subjective) the increased borrowing or spending. Then bring forth the statistics, along with corresponding events causing increased spending and borrowing, as conclusive evidence that they are relevant in every way to be considered. |
||
|
Jun. 18, 2006 at 03:02:21 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| L & C, you are more difficult to reason with than AA any day of the week. "That sucks big time." At least AA doesn't contradict himself in the same posting. What are we to make of the intellectual fur-balls that you cough up here? "One of the real big problems with the Libs is they always seem to have this cure for everything." "The bottom line is this: Liberals don't have a plan." Which is it L & C, we have a cure, or we have no plan? "The bottom line is" that you think you straddle both sides, when in fact both sides have twisted you into a pretzel. Do you think you offer insights into the liberal mind by spouting off right-wing talking points? Let me attempt to undue a couple of the Gordian knots. "I have a real hard time with people that think they don't have to adhere to any basic beliefs of this great country(the Bible, the Flag, Pledge of allegiance" Go and pick up any history book, consult any political scientist, or scour the Constitution for any mention that the Bible, the flag, or the Pledge are this nation's basic beliefs. Get back to us on this, will you? "Talking about the days of Clinton where there was a surplus? That will never happen again. No set of economic incentives and formulas were ever in place before Clinton and will never be in place again. The times are not conducive to any kind of economic grand workings such as then." WTF are you talking about? So you have come to the conclusion that this country has had its heyday, so why complain about it. I would very much like to avoid a tomorrow where each day is bleaker than the last. I think it is a noble effort, if not for ourselves, then for our children. If you don't agree, then why are you still here? I could go on about every single sentence you just posted, because it is all just so confused and misguided. But who has the time? |
||
|
|
Jun. 18, 2006 at 03:19:15 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| L and C's time is valuable folks. He doesn't have time to worry over little details about the national debt, BUT DON"T YOU DARE SCREW HIM ON SLIMFAST!!
|
||
|
|
Jun. 18, 2006 at 04:41:04 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| There indiesexy said it by golly. Hurrah! Hurrah! I don't twist a thing. Who's on first? What's on second? I don't know. THIRD BASE! The problem is with you and others is you straddle only one side. You want to twist what I say. Cure? Plan? So what! Used in two different sentences. How does it mutilate anything? Just because YOU and INDIE and others explain something doesn't make it absolute. That is what you seem to think. There is nothing exclusively fair about either agenda of conservatism or liberalism. They both have flaws. That is where you and your Libs are vastly mistaken. What you perceive as ideal may not be ideal at all from some people because we all aren't in the same basket and we all aren't born with a silver spoon in our mouths. Some, but not all people who reach success say this: I worked so hard to get where I am. As if nothing else mattered. That is what Conserves do, like Bush never had to want for snything. That is why he is out of touch. The hannity's and the coulters and the rest are out of touch cause somewhere along the way they brandished an ideology that whatever happened to anyone it is their fault. Maybe. Not always. But I have gotten the same thing for years. People write something and they think that it is the absolute, without a doubt, most well explained thing on the planet and who could doubt it? Thinking outside the box is good. Not the old theories that are archaic in these times. You must get out of the box. Staying in the box is good only for a short time. The box will kill you if you stay in it too long. I've never believed in staying in the box and letting it get hold of me. So if you think trying to analyze the issues on merit of how it affects the people or the Country in the most positive way the most is straddling the fence well, that's too bad. Concentrate on something else besides whether I say cure or plan and it is a terrible conflict. Did you know John C. Anderson, Rosemary, or Phoenix Native of other boards fame? You sound just like them, happy to twist everything. |
||
Report Abuse