>> ^Barbar:

Dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm not looking to debate anything here, I'm just curious as to your reasoning for considering Hitchens as an (at least) one time neo-con. What information led you to this opinion? As it seems distinctly opposed to what I've read in his memoirs and other writings.


ill answer for ya @Barber
hitchens was all for the iraq war and went even as far as to say waterboarding was not only NOT torture but necessary.
in his defense he did step down from both those positions.it should also be noted that hitchens actually allowed himself to be waterboarded and immediately (and i do mean immediately) changed his position that waterboarding was most certainly torture.which to me was a tribute to this mans intelligence.a true believer would never change his ideology but the intelligent person,when confronted with incontrovertible evidence,will change.

one final note @Enzoblue
neo-conservatism was anything BUT conservative.the neo-conservative philosophy began in the 1940's by leon strauss from the university of chicago.the basic premise is to use america's military might to secure american interests globally.this small fringe group of intellectuals had very little influence until the late 70's when they co-opted the christian right for their cause.

and so began the conflation of the christian right and american nationalism in the form of the republican party.
oh the delicious irony.

so when you say "old school neoconservative" what you are really referring to is the time the neo-cons had minimal influence (still there though) rumsfeld and cheney being big players during the reagan administration.which of course was made possible by the christian rights entering the political sphere (up till then most churches stayed out of politics).these same players brought in their fellow neo-cons during the bush administration and that administration read like a who's-who of prominent neocons:rumsfeld,cheny,pearl,wolfowitz,amratige,addington,woo.the list is massive.
so it wasnt so much about a change in philosophy but rather this fringe group (catapulted by the naive christian right) as having come into their own in terms of power and influence.

and all i have to say to that merry bunch of fucks is: THANKS DICKHEADS.

Dystopianfuturetoday:

I'm not looking to debate anything here, I'm just curious as to your reasoning for considering Hitchens as an (at least) one time neo-con. What information led you to this opinion? As it seems distinctly opposed to what I've read in his memoirs and other writings.

What WPP does is try and increase doubt to a level that becomes a passive ad hominem attack.

Nope - I view the story from as many angles as possible, come to a conclusion, and then state my perspective from a position of informed certitude. I know this infuriates prog-libs, but I make no apologies for it.

Then that would clearly discredit all the protests worldwide

No - it would not discredit OWS. However, it would supply evidence that Mrs. McProtester was the kind of person Fox News said she was.

Who gives a &&&& what this woman is doing?

Her family, perhaps? A parent has responsibilities and obligations beyond their own selfish whims. If a person ditches thier responsibility without the family's explicit leave then others are not out of place for saying she lacks character. What is needed is more information - specifically the husband's side of the story. What cursory evidence we have seems to suggest that she left for OWS and her family was not exactly cool with it (IE reports that her husband is 'puzzled'). But without more data nothing definitive can be said.

The paragraphs you have dedicated to this non-story show that you are exactly the type of drone these $$$holes are trying to stir up in the first place.

I've observed OWS and reached a reasoned conclusion that they're a bunch of prog-lib dupes and union astroturf who are mad at the wrong people. They have no plan, and many of them are attempting to agitate anger, resentment, and (in some cases) violence. I put it to you that it is more accurate to say that YOU are exactly the kind of drone that OWS is trying to stir up.

You are worrying about &&&& that doesn't matter, you have no idea what you are talking about, and it's none of your business anyway. She is one of thousands sacrificing who-knows-what to be there and support OWS. She is there doing what she believes in.

Family solidarity and fidelity matters. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Her true character is as yet undetermined. I live what I believe in every day.

The story isn't about how this mother did or did not coordinate going to the protest with her family but how the media is exploiting one person and her family to push their agenda... just like they always do except it's really really blatantly obvious now.

I think that prog-libs are seeing things that don't exist with this crazy 'push their agenda' foolishness. This is Fox & Friends. It's a morning 'chatting idiots' show like Good Morning America. Look - just because someone on TV says something that is not flush with YOUR political perspective does not mean there is some sinister master agenda that seeks to undermine you.

There are multiple media studies that show the news media - as a whole - is far more slanted left than it is right - and that even FOX news isn't anywhere near as 'right wing' as prog-libs think it is. But even I don't think there the leftist slant is some 'agenda' the news media has. I think that the news media is simply populated by prog-libs who pick stories and portray them from a left-wing bias because that's how they think things are.

When a prob-lib journalist sees a bunch of prog-lib OWS protesters, they feel sympathy for them and report accordingly. When they see a bunch of conservative Tea-Party protestors, they despise them and report accordingly. And that's exactly how it all went down. The media mostly treats OWS with kid gloves and slobbers all over them because leftist like them. But the Tea Party was 'conservative', and so it got no such softshoe treatment. The TP has been entirely peaceful. Not one cop has been injured. Not once have they had to be tear gassed, or 'evicted', or otherwise cause trouble. But to the media they were a bunch of dangerous, evil, racist, thugs. But that isn't the media's 'agenda'. It is a result of thier perception bias.

For example - let's say you are a typical prog-lib. Compared to the national 'average', a prog-lib is way left of center. If we use a 100 point scale where 1 means "liberal" and 100 means "conservative" then a prog-lib is way down in the teens or twenties. So they see the world from that perspective, and their friend do too. So when they encounter an opinion that is actually "moderate" (say 50 on the scale) they see it as "right-wing" because it is so far to the right of themselves.

When you occupy a far-left opinion, pretty much ANYTHING you encounter other than similarly far-left opinions appears to be radical "neo-con" right-wing extremism. In reality, that is totally untrue, and most of the stuff they see as 'right-wing' is actually centrist. So when Fox & Friends expresses the rather centrist opinion that a woman who abandons her family is a bad person, prog-lib hackles go up because the woman is a fellow prog-lib and such a moralization is clearly some sort of 'right wing' agenda seeking to undermine the OWS group you empathize with.

My goal is to never attend one of Art Carden's classes,

A bottle's worth of water is worth a whole lot to someone in the third world dying of thirst,

You can't do shit with a diamond dumbass. The whole reason diamonds are valuable is because they are kept artificially scarce and over the years De Beers successfully marketed them as desirable ("a girl's best friend", song: "diamonds are forever".

The business that earns the most profit by using resources is Exxon Mobil, and is quickly helping to turn the earth into an unsustainable rock.

Restrictions on trade cause poverty? What about the restriction on the trade of human beings, I bet that's really hurting your pocket book eh you fucking neo-con wank. I'm not going to post anything for this one because if you actually believe this you are beyond grasping any reason.
I mean just look at the poverty that unrestricted trade causes in the USA, how can anyone still claim that an unregulated free market is ethical?

This whole video is bullshit. I can't believe this is tagged with philosophy.

>> ^deedub81:

Yes, he was in Forbes as one of the "25 most influential liberals in U.S. media" and he calls himself a radical.
Not sure where "neo-con" came from.
Forbes 25 Most Influential Liberals

>> ^jwray:
Hitchens is not a conservative.



His numerous editorials in support of the Iraq War caused some to label him a neoconservative, while Hitchens insists he is not "a conservative of any kind." -wiki

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Stewart can’t admit that or his audience of smug, self-congratulatory neolibs would lose their self esteem.


I don't think you understand what "neolibs" means, given the context you use it (derogatory towards liberal-leaning thinkers). I'd suggest you actually look it up before you continue lobbing it out there as if it were an equivalent to "neo-con". It's not.

Let me Google that fer ya: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=neoliberalism

Wonderful how the Democrats are bypassing the filibuster for the a Neo Con bill.

Yet they couldn't bypass a filibuster for anything else. While my previous statement is probably not true, it expresses my sentiment.

Torture, war and the suspension of civil rights is key to corporate foreign (and domestic) expansion. They were never part of Bush's agenda, or at least not a part of the agenda he put forth during his campaign. I believe that numbskull was just following orders (not to say that he wasn't on board in general with neo-con philosophy.)

In order to force Iraq into turning over their government, country and its resources to multi-national corporations, the people must be traumatized to the point where they will not resist. To their credit, the Iraqi's continue to resist, despite mass shock and awe, which is why billions of our dollars continue to be spent there on a daily basis. Even still, they've already allowed western businessmen to write their "constitution" and auction off most of their state businesses.

(edit side note: The billions of dollars of our money flushed down the toilet every day in the middle east provides a shock and awe of its own on in this country. Do you notice the higher the deficit gets, the greater the call for austerity - yet defense is never on the table to be cut? We are under attack every bit as much as our Iraqi counterparts.)

If you want more info on this, you should read 'The Shock Doctine'. It's excellent and probably the most important political book of the past few decades.

This 'your narrative needs work' snideness is the kind of partisan masturbation I'm talking about in my comment above, and why I believe there is little hope for change in the near future.

You are too caught up on personality. At some point in either 2012 or 2016, Obama will be out of office, but corporatism will remain.

>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^bobknight33:
Its a Joke, just a joke. That was funny.

I guess the left can't take a laugh unless they make the joke.

If it was a joke, why wasn't it fucking funny? If you're going to trivialize the barbarism to which journalists are commonly exposed in their pursuit of information, you can at least make the joke a good one. That's not the biggest issue for me, though. It's that I know she was only half-joking.
I'm starting to think "the right" are mentally deficient by default, and I'm not even on the same fucking continent as you people.
Here's a thought; you won't be able to find a right-wing, mainstream party anywhere in western Europe that's more conservative than the Democrats. Your political system is a trainwreck of sodomy. You are doing something wrong. And on the right, little concepts like reality don't seem to factor into it.


Only in a few red-states (like mine, Utah) think that classical conservatism via the Republican party with Abraham Lincoln being the first elected, still think it's the same and alive and beating. They also believe that Nixon and especially Reagan fit into it's precepts. These people get A's in academia for thinking this. I won't even begin to explain as to why academia in th U.S. is full of shit as well as "Republican" followers or fellow "revolutionaries" or "jackoffs" like The Tea Party (the unfortunate rock band with that name needs to change it, or be tied with it and them--unfairly). The idiots calling it "The Tea Party" or "Neo-Con:The Second Shot Party" for us, couldn't even begin to tell you what the Boston Tea Party was for or about; they're clueless to history and if you tell them so, they believe they're only--more correct...

The party called "Republicans", died with Teddy Roosevelt.

/Every politician since the U.S. started in 1776 are turning in their graves... Except for some since prohibition--the Others™, that failed, and lead us to a near coup (Mafia wise). The U.S. state picked, history books don't bother to tell you how close it was. All it tells you is how AWESOME your state and country are--fuck everyone else except Britain when we get to the chapter called "People and Countries that make great lapdogs.".

I hope our secondary drug war doesn't turn out the same; but, ironically, it's starting to have a great potential for it. Brought to you by the people that don't read about history. Neo-Conolgy...

//dev/null

Why is it extreme fiction to think that powerful, ambitious men would take advantage of a power vacuum? Free market intervention via the IMF has horror stories far, far worse than this. Real stories, not fiction. Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, Bolivia. Powerful people take advantage of the power vacuum in our country too. Deregulation of derivatives caused the current financial crisis. Deregulating the banks caused the mortgage fraud crisis. Deregulating energy caused the Enron crisis. Business has co-opted our relatively powerful government and led us into war and debt. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and the power of wealthy ambitious men would be unbound. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and what you consider to be oppression would be dwarfed.

When states fail, gangs and warlords always immediately rise up to take advantage of the system.

When I say anarchists and conservative libertarians are naive, I'm not trying to be mean. I think they are blind to the historical constant that powerful, ambitious men will always try and game political systems, and that anarchism, by design, would be completely impotent at stopping them. It is no small coincidence that these powerful, ambitious men support many of the institutions and think tanks that inform your politics. The same people that fund Cato and the Reason Institute also fund PNAC and Freedomworks. Does it not disturb you that Neo-Cons fund your institutions? Does it not disturb you that conservative libertarian heroes like Milton Friedman have backed violence and violent dictators in South America to further their cause? To further your cause?

Anyway, this is why I find conservative libertarianism and anarchism so objectionable. I don't think anarchism could ever happen, because of the paradox that in order to achieve and maintain an anti-state, you would need the power of a state. The reason I oppose a movement that could never get off the ground is that its principles (low taxes, deregulation) are being used as justification for the very tyranny it seeks to abolish.

(PS: check out the documentary: GASLAND. My fiction was based on real events.)

I'd never read that Northwoods memo before. Creepy. It does lend a little more credence to some of the wilder conspiracy theories. I always found it interesting that Barbara Olson (Ann Coulter clone and wife to Neo-Con Ted Olson) died in one of the planes that crashed into the WTC. Not sure what significance it holds.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Have you seen this? Worth a look.

http://videosift.com/video/The-New-American-Century

No drunk driver will ever stop to think "oh wait, prison rape."

So this ad isn't a deterrent of any sort.

Furthermore, when [in a decent civil society] is it ever acceptable to threaten a person or group with the fear of violent sexual assault by individuals stripped of their dignity, freedom & humanity?
~~~

I never liked "slippery slope" arguments but if you think this is okay, where do you draw the line for these ads?

"Don't smoke cannabis or.. SWAT teams could bust down your door without a warrant and murder beloved family pets right in front of your young children..

And you wouldn't want that to happen, riight? *Wink Nudge*"
~~~

If this doesn't set off a "completely inappropriate/tasteless" bell in your mind..
it would seem you are indeed infected by the Neo-con Ideology Virus, NCIV


>> ^bareboards2:
..but this thing just doesn't set off any alarms with me. It's a well played scare tactic, as far as I am concerned.

These borrowers knowingly made bad loans to people who didn't understand the contract

In the early 90s the banks were arguing AGAINST repealing Glass-Stegall. Politicians partnered with some big finaincal houses like AIG and started accusing mid-size & small banks of racism ala "red-lining" to grease the political skids for a repeal. In most instances there was no racism of any kind. Banks simply did not give loans to people that couldn't afford them. But poor, urban areas had higher percentages of minority populations - and so out whips the race card...

I lived in the 70s and 80s. I know how hard it was to get even a 30-year loan in those days. But literally overnight banks had to start giving out loans to people who traditionally would not qualify. Instead of making money on the interest of the LOAN, banks were expected to make profit by bundling & selling the mortgage. The government promise was that if things went sour on the borrower end, Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae would paper it over. It worked fine for about a decade. But you can't sustain a market when your only customers are poor people in homes they can't afford and property flippers taking out 2+ extra mortgages more than they can realistically pay for.

The bank's job isn't to be your daddy, or to lecture you about whether you should or shouldn't get a loan. If a person walks into a bank, then as long as they qualify under the rules which are established by government then the bank doesn't have much choice. When people qualify, the bank issues the loan or they open themselves to discrimination lawsuits. It's a Catch-22.

Your outrage should more properly be targeted at the government. Have them re-institute Glass-Stegall. Force them to tighten up the requirements on who can/can't get a loan. Make it so people who shouldn't get loans CAN'T get them and that banks aren't allowed to do it. Join the rest of us racist, evil, red-lining conservatives who think loans should only be given to those who can actually afford to pay them off. But prepare yourself for a tongue-lashing from every neo-liberal leftist group under the sun, because clearly your bean-counting logic is pure neo-con white hatred, right? Oh - and especially prepare yourself to get excoriated by guys like Barney Frank who was one of the principle engineers of this whole "UFFOWDABLE HOWSEING!" mess.

The Anti-Democrat bear illustrates common claims made by a segment of Tea Party "Activists."
Not all members but some.

There is no such distinction made in this vid (then again they're furry critters).

It's those individuals who are the focus of this video because it's those Tea Party Members who claim that illegal aliens and the poor make government too big.

Illegals cost all legal Americans billions of dollars in fraud, violent crime and hospital visits. There's no disputing it. The entitlement mentality is what makes government too big, and that the natural tendency of all governments is to grow bigger and encroach on liberty and privatized wealth (their only source of revenue).

Will some unscrupulous individuals use this point to make broad generalizations about all Neo Cons/Tea Party Members/Libertarians? Sure.

If it really were a few it would be manageable, but it isn't. It's the entire libmedia (all but Fox) that abandoned all pretense of objectivity during the 2008 election of the false messiah. They have tried (and failed) to demonize the Tea Party.

Tho you yourself seem even more desperate for attempting to delegitimize an entire ideology by claiming that factors like race or sex or age or income level are non-issues.

Where the argument falls apart over all the factors you mention: Asians. Asian minorities came to America with nothing and endured racism, yet now Asians earn higher grades and make more money than Whites.

We're entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts, and the facts of the last two years shows that the scamulus was a failure, unemployment remains high, obamacare has increased health care costs and will continue to do so until it's stopped and weak foreign policy encourages America's enemies.


p.s. - what's the difference between Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush

On the surface you can argue they're all the same, but they aren't. For example, while Bush failed to enforce immigration laws and foolishly passively accepted a plan for scamnesty, Obama and Friends are actively trying to give illegals path to voting for taxocrats citizenship.

The real fun begins after November 2nd. If newly-elected republicans think they're going to return to business as usual and vote along with taxocrats to avoid conflict, they too will be targeted and removed during the next election cycle. The Tea Party means what it says, tho the left wants to rewrite its script. Nothing doing.

The Anti-Democrat bear illustrates common claims made by a segment of Tea Party "Activists."
Not all members but some.

It's those individuals who are the focus of this video because it's those Tea Party Members who claim that illegal aliens and the poor make government too big.

Considering:
1. The majority of illegal aliens = Mexican people.
2. The majority of poor = Black people.
3. The majority of the Tea Party = older white males.
4. The majority of Government = Rich older white males.

There is no way have an honest discussion about those four issues without mentioning the groups they impact.. which are clearly divided along racial lines.

Will some unscrupulous individuals use this point to make broad generalizations about all Neo Cons/Tea Party Members/Libertarians? Sure.

Tho you yourself seem even more desperate for attempting to delegitimize an entire ideology by claiming that factors like race or sex or age or income level are non-issues.

p.s. - what's the difference between Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush

>> ^quantumushroom:

Some of these points might be worth refuting...until 3:13.
Do leftists know they sound like desperate, desperate fools when they bring RACE into arguments about the legitimate size and purposes of government?
Obviously not.

P.S. "Mild disappointment" with obama = "nicked while shaving" with guillotine