quick question about neocons, conservatives and republicans

[JSt0rm]

I notice that a lot of you that fall under one of these labels are tripping over yourselves to redefine what bush2 is or what is the problem with current republicans or whatever. Thats a good thing I guess, but somebody voted for these people and I am inclined to think that it was all of you.

So how can you now go back on your own judgment because it turned out to be flawed and redefine what you thought? I mean if you want to remake your party go for it, it needs it. But don't pretend that none of this was your doing and that you all are the real conservatives with honorable values.

If you all were hoodwinked into thinking these people were legit then your judgment comes into question.


I realize most of you will see these as loaded questions and statements and refuse to accept the ideas laid out. Thats fine.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I notice that a lot of you that fall under one of these labels are tripping over yourselves to redefine what bush2 is or what is the problem with current republicans or whatever. Thats a good thing I guess, but somebody voted for these people and I am inclined to think that it was all of you.

So how can you now go back on your own judgment because it turned out to be flawed and redefine what you thought? I mean if you want to remake your party go for it, it needs it. But don't pretend that none of this was your doing and that you all are the real conservatives with honorable values.

If you all were hoodwinked into thinking these people were legit then your judgment comes into question.


I realize most of you will see these as loaded questions and statements and refuse to accept the ideas laid out. Thats fine.

Boy, I wonder what would happen if I started a thread like this. Wait... no I don't wonder... I know what would happen...


Anyway, I have been trying to do just what you state ever since I started seeing the '94 revolution loose it's way and get sucked into the liberal's big gov't world - change it. I vote for Conservatives, support Conservative ideals, and do what I can elsewhere to get the message out.
IMO, the problem with the current Republican party is that they have become wattered down. Conservatism wins...luke warm does not. Hell, if we are going to get big gov't...might as well have it come from liberals since it's what they know best.

 

[PokerGuy]

Hindsight is always 20/20. I guess you can go to all levels of government, but looking at the highest level (the president), I can honestly say I was thrilled when Bush won over the Goron in 2000. I was hoping for a real conservative administration, but we ended up getting an administration taken over by the neo-con hawks. The republican party has drifted away from conservative values towards the big-government mentality and some sort of bunker "we're under siege!" mentality of trading freedom for security. Like most conservatives, I was (and am!) in a position of choosing between the liberal mentality or the neo-cons, neither of which I agree with.

Looks like 2008 is going to be the same, the country is going to lose no matter which one of the two candidates is elected.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, the problem with the current Republican party is that they have become wattered down. Conservatism wins...luke warm does not. Hell, if we are going to get big gov't...might as well have it come from liberals since it's what they know best.

but luke-warm has won for almost a decade. Didn't the republicans do whatever to get into control including selling out the true base?


ohh and the point of my post is not as a call out or trolling of you guy. I honestly want to know and thank you both for your candor.

 

[Craig234]

As I've said, I predicted in 2001 that the Republicans would have to distance themselves from GWB when his terrible policies were unopular, and they'd deny he was a 'real conservative'.

But I thought they'd be unlikely to go so far as to try to say his error was in actually being a 'liberal'. Wow, they have no shame. Hint: Liberals voted against Bush. He's not a liberal, that's perverse.

The righties are the suckers who are spoon fed the 'small government' pablum to get their votes for bad politicians over and over and over.

The liberals are the ones who have actually balanced budgets, built the country and the middle class with good policies, I hear one even invented the internet. Oh, wait, had the government fund the creation of the internet. Oh noes, the federal government couldn't do that, it's incompetent and evil. I suggest the righties here log off and stay off the internet for a bit to protest the government funding its creation.

This is why the righties so often say democrats = communists, because for their lack of knowledge of liberal policies, they make up reasons to 'hate the other team' in many cases.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, the problem with the current Republican party is that they have become wattered down. Conservatism wins...luke warm does not. Hell, if we are going to get big gov't...might as well have it come from liberals since it's what they know best.

but luke-warm has won for almost a decade. Didn't the republicans do whatever to get into control including selling out the true base?


ohh and the point of my post is not as a call out or trolling of you guy. I honestly want to know and thank you both for your candor.

I agree, since '94 it's gotten increasingly luke-warm. I basically stated as much.

No, the base was sold out AFTER the Republicans took over in '94.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I notice that a lot of you that fall under one of these labels are tripping over yourselves to redefine what bush2 is or what is the problem with current republicans or whatever. Thats a good thing I guess, but somebody voted for these people and I am inclined to think that it was all of you.

So how can you now go back on your own judgment because it turned out to be flawed and redefine what you thought? I mean if you want to remake your party go for it, it needs it. But don't pretend that none of this was your doing and that you all are the real conservatives with honorable values.

If you all were hoodwinked into thinking these people were legit then your judgment comes into question.


I realize most of you will see these as loaded questions and statements and refuse to accept the ideas laid out. Thats fine.

Well, contrary to widespread opinion, I don't question my judgement for voting for Bush.

Despite Bush being unpopular, I think the truth of the matter is, if Bush' name was Clinton, most of democrats wouldn't have as big a complaint as they do.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I agree, since '94 it's gotten increasingly luke-warm. I basically stated as much.

No, the base was sold out AFTER the Republicans took over in '94.

Why don't you follow real conservative Kevin Phillips' example, and get a clue that the real issues are wealth/corporatism versus the public, and that those interests have a propaganda campaign to get you so-called conservatives to vote for their candidates over and over, and it's not that they think they can get you to really like Bush's policies, but they can get you to hate the democrats irrationally. And it works. Who are you voting for in 2008?

Other role models for you include John Dean, and John Rothmann.

 

[fskimospy]

Simply put ideology evolves over time. Because it is always in flux, you always have people claiming to know what the 'real' conservatives/liberals/etc represent.

 

[SlickSnake]

It's all about the divide and conquer strategy. You have to marginalize and demonize the other opposing group to try to make yourselves look good, no matter the lies and negative consequences involved in doing so. So the party demagoguery is ultimately not about who is really right, but rather the perceived faults with the other competing groups.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I agree, since '94 it's gotten increasingly luke-warm. I basically stated as much.

No, the base was sold out AFTER the Republicans took over in '94.

Why don't you follow real conservative Kevin Phillips' example, and get a clue that the real issues are wealth/corporatism versus the public, and that those interests have a propaganda campaign to get you so-called conservatives to vote for their candidates over and over, and it's not that they think they can get you to really like Bush's policies, but they can get you to hate the democrats irrationally. And it works. Who are you voting for in 2008?

Other role models for you include John Dean, and John Rothmann.

Phillips hates Bush... liberals think he's a "real" Conservative.
Liberals love to play the game of claiming "corporatism versus the public" as if it is a good vs evil equation.

I have not decided if I am going to vote in the Presidential election yet. I will vote on all state and local items but have yet to decide if I should hold my nose, not vote, or vote 3rd party out of spite.

Now exactly what does ANY of this have to do with the OP? Are you a neocon, Coservative, or Republican? Or did you just come in here to toss around some fire...

 

[Cold Steel]

The current crop of Republicans are certainly not conservative. At least not in the classic conservative sense.

I voted Bush in '00 because I just couldn't stand the thought of Gore. I've voted Libertarian ever since. And I don't agree with them all the time, either, but they're currently the closest you can get to classic conservative.

But I've also come to the conclusion that I will no longer vote for what I believe to be the lesser of two evils. I can no longer vote in favor of evil, so I will no longer vote either Repub or Dem. I'm waiting for a real conservative to show him/her self and I will probably go my grave still waiting.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I notice that a lot of you that fall under one of these labels are tripping over yourselves to redefine what bush2 is or what is the problem with current republicans or whatever. Thats a good thing I guess, but somebody voted for these people and I am inclined to think that it was all of you.

So how can you now go back on your own judgment because it turned out to be flawed and redefine what you thought? I mean if you want to remake your party go for it, it needs it. But don't pretend that none of this was your doing and that you all are the real conservatives with honorable values.

If you all were hoodwinked into thinking these people were legit then your judgment comes into question.


I realize most of you will see these as loaded questions and statements and refuse to accept the ideas laid out. Thats fine.

Troll. Bush said he wasn't going globe trotting and nation building and was elected largely based on that combined with the usual tax cut and government cutting rhetoric. That's what conservatives like. And he failed on all of them. So it's not like conservatives have to admit any mistakes or feel guilty voting for Bush - until the second time of course - but a war time president has never lost due to people rallying behind the flag.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
It's all about the divide and conquer strategy. You have to marginalize and demonize the other opposing group to try to make yourselves look good, no matter the lies and negative consequences involved in doing so. So the party demagoguery is ultimately not about who is really right, but rather the perceived faults with the other competing groups.

Some would argue that the strategy of the wealthy is to get the public split into left and right bickering over other issues so they don't join up and oppose the wealthy more.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I agree, since '94 it's gotten increasingly luke-warm. I basically stated as much.

No, the base was sold out AFTER the Republicans took over in '94.

Why don't you follow real conservative Kevin Phillips' example, and get a clue that the real issues are wealth/corporatism versus the public, and that those interests have a propaganda campaign to get you so-called conservatives to vote for their candidates over and over, and it's not that they think they can get you to really like Bush's policies, but they can get you to hate the democrats irrationally. And it works. Who are you voting for in 2008?

Other role models for you include John Dean, and John Rothmann.

Phillips hates Bush... liberals think he's a "real" Conservative.
Liberals love to play the game of claiming "corporatism versus the public" as if it is a good vs evil equation.

I have not decided if I am going to vote in the Presidential election yet. I will vote on all state and local items but have yet to decide if I should hold my nose, not vote, or vote 3rd party out of spite.

Now exactly what does ANY of this have to do with the OP? Are you a neocon, Coservative, or Republican? Or did you just come in here to toss around some fire...

Did you vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004? Phillips didn't. I didn't.

Your post just oozes partisan rhetoric. Let's start with "Liberals love to".

Without saying anything else, you are already implying that liberals aren't making a good point, rather they're indulging some petty pleasure to say something.

"play the game" - again, you are attacking them as not making a point, but 'playing'.

Then you misrepresent liberals as simply being about 'corporatism versus the public' as if it's good versus evil. Well, sometimes we use 'corporatism' as shorthand for 'the excesses and problems with corporatism', but pretty much all liberals are in favor of the good parts of the corporate system - they want to improve it, not destroy it. You are right that liberals see issues of 'good versus evil' though. And I think they (we) have a point. But that's not the issue; you can discuss the issues with 'good versus evil' or without it.

You ask the relevance to the OP? The OP is about the splitting of 'right-wing', 'conservative', 'Republican' - splitting with which people like Phillips are well aware.

As I've said, I use 'right-wing' distinctly from 'conservative', and I've said that I think that the 'right-wingers' get away with murder because our popular language lacks a name for them - they get combined with all the 'conservatives' and 'Republicans'. Imagine if to attack the Nazis, you had to attack all the Europeans. It'd suddenly get very tricky to phrase your attacks. That's what's happened with the right-wing making every attack on it an attack on half the people in the US.

You guys need to get your house in order and find a way to name the Bush faction of the right and get control back of the Republican party. I don't see that happening soon.

 

[bamacre]

I've voted 3rd party in '00 and '04, and will again in '08.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I notice that a lot of you that fall under one of these labels are tripping over yourselves to redefine what bush2 is or what is the problem with current republicans or whatever. Thats a good thing I guess, but somebody voted for these people and I am inclined to think that it was all of you.

So how can you now go back on your own judgment because it turned out to be flawed and redefine what you thought? I mean if you want to remake your party go for it, it needs it. But don't pretend that none of this was your doing and that you all are the real conservatives with honorable values.

If you all were hoodwinked into thinking these people were legit then your judgment comes into question.


I realize most of you will see these as loaded questions and statements and refuse to accept the ideas laid out. Thats fine.

Troll. Bush said he wasn't going globe trotting and nation building and was elected largely based on that combined with the usual tax cut and government cutting rhetoric. That's what conservatives like. And he failed on all of them. So it's not like conservatives have to admit any mistakes or feel guilty voting for Bush - until the second time of course - but a war time president has never lost due to people rallying behind the flag.

I agree. His post has a tone of anger against a generalized group of people. He makes it personal while trying to keep his post objective.

The term neo-conservative has been used for a long time, but it's been used as early as the 1970s in it's modern meaning. Bush campaigned as a traditional conservative, but served as a neo-con.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

The liberals are the ones who have actually balanced budgets,

Presidents don't spend the money, Congress does. Please remind us all of the most recent year a Democratic-controlled Congress (House or Senate) passed a balanced budget.

 

[brandonb]

I voted for Bush in 00 and 04. I was young at the time, in my 20's.

In 00, I didn't know better. At that time, I looked at things like personal responsibility. That was my motif. Government shouldn't bail out anybody for their pack of personal responsibility. Abortion is one thing. Most abortions are done because and I quote from stats the #1 reason people have abortions is because "The father disappeared." The 2nd reason "Don't know who the father was." I thought that was an excuse, so I went with someone more pro-life and seemed would make people take responsibility for themselves. That didn't happen.

In 04, I didn't know better. To be honest I don't know what I was thinking. I was at a crossroads with Bush, Republicans, and what not. I didn't like the wars, Bush, or Republicans much. I think it came down to John Kerry. He said he was Catholic but his voting record indicated otherwise. I was going to church alot back then, and he seemed to be a fake Catholic/Christian, much as I feel about Bush. But I think it was due to his Catholicism and voting record. I felt more comfortable with the bad things I knew rather than roll the dice and try something new.

In 08, I will not vote republican. My friend is a delegate in the republican party in Minnesota. He's gone to every convention, etc. But he's pro Ron Paul, and he said the republican party refused to allow Ron Paul guys to speak or do anything. They'd only let "Neocon" supporters speak. They are hushing everybody who isn't neocon. They will not get my vote ever again. THey refuse to allow anybody else in the door, and thats not right. Its clear to me that the system is hijacked and corrupt.

I vote for nobody. And won't until the Revolution happens. Its not about best man for the job, its about dollars and special interest.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: brandonb
I voted for Bush in 00 and 04. I was young at the time, in my 20's.

In 00, I didn't know better. At that time, I looked at things like personal responsibility. That was my motif. Government shouldn't bail out anybody for their pack of personal responsibility. Abortion is one thing. Most abortions are done because and I quote from stats the #1 reason people have abortions is because "The father disappeared." The 2nd reason "Don't know who the father was." I thought that was an excuse, so I went with someone more pro-life and seemed would make people take responsibility for themselves. That didn't happen.

In 04, I didn't know better. To be honest I don't know what I was thinking. I was at a crossroads with Bush, Republicans, and what not. I didn't like the wars, Bush, or Republicans much. I think it came down to John Kerry. He said he was Catholic but his voting record indicated otherwise. I was going to church alot back then, and he seemed to be a fake Catholic/Christian, much as I feel about Bush. But I think it was due to his Catholicism and voting record.

In 08, I will not vote republican. My friend is a delegate in the republican party in Minnesota. He's gone to every convention, etc. But he's pro Ron Paul, and he said the republican party refused to allow Ron Paul guys to speak or do anything. They'd only let "Neocon" supporters speak. They are hushing everybody who isn't neocon. They will not get my vote ever again. THey refuse to allow anybody else in the door, and thats not right. Its clear to me that the system is hijacked and corrupt.

I vote for nobody. And won't until the Revolution happens. Its not about best man for the job, its about dollars and special interest.

Don't refuse to vote - it's your responsibility as a citizen, and it's one of your few real chances to change anything. If you're fed up with the two big parties (and who can blame you for that), vote 3rd party. The Libertarians could use the support.

 

[ProfJohn]

There are so many places to go with this thread, here are a few.

1. Hard to compare what Bush said before he got elected to what happened after 9-11. 9-11 caused the biggest shift in governmental policies since World War 2. He certainly hasn't been perfect post 9-11, but for the most part he is sailing uncharted waters AND congress has gone along with pretty much everything as well.

2. The Republicans actually gained power by being true conservatives. Go back and read the contract with America, it was filled with conservative ideas, smaller government etc. It was when the started to stray from these policies that things went to hell.

3. The reason they started to stray from core beliefs is, IMO, due to the system we have created in Washington. Politicians get elected by delivering the goods to their home states. When they were out of power it was easy for them to rail against evils of that system, but the second they had power it was just as easy to use the system to keep them in office.

Finally, let's not forget that one of the reasons the Republicans are struggling so much as a party today is because they did so well in the 90s. Nearly all of their big ideas got passed and they failed to come up with new ideas. It may take some time out of power for them to reemerge with new ideas and regain their footing.

 

[ProfJohn]

Damn double posts...
A picture of momma and some baby deer for your enjoyment

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Don't refuse to vote - it's your responsibility as a citizen, and it's one of your few real chances to change anything. If you're fed up with the two big parties (and who can blame you for that), vote 3rd party. The Libertarians could use the support.

I'm voting with a no confidence vote by not going to the poll. I won't vote Libertarian because Barr is a jackass. I think thats the Libertarian guy, or is he independant.

Edit - Libertarian guy. I just read his Wikipedia. Most of what he is about I agree with, however, there are a few things I don't. Like wanting to ban Wicca religion from the military. I think thats wrong and steps over freedom of religion. I've heard comments from him too about certain things on the web which gave me a bad taste in my mouth, which is why I said he sounded like a jackass. But I'd say for the most part, I agree with his values. So maybe I'll look into it more. I don't care if someone is a jackass if they run the country like I think someone should.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Don't refuse to vote - it's your responsibility as a citizen, and it's one of your few real chances to change anything. If you're fed up with the two big parties (and who can blame you for that), vote 3rd party. The Libertarians could use the support.

I'm voting with a no confidence vote by not going to the poll. I won't vote Libertarian because Barr is a jackass. I think thats the Libertarian guy, or is he independant.

Barr may be a twit, but he's not going to win anyway, so it doesn't really matter. I vote Libertarian because I support the philosophy, and because it shows the Big 2 that there are Americans willing to think outside the two-party box.

 

[dphantom]

I think it is refreshing and intelectually honest to see conservatives criticize the current Republican party. They have strayed so far from what the conservative ideology really is.

I have yet to see the same honesty from our socialist/communist friends on this board. Betwen the Obamabots and the Clintonistas, nary a negative word and heaven forbid we say anything bad about our messiah of the Church of MMGW, Al Gore.