@newtboy

not to butt my nose in...
ah who am i kidding..of course i am going to butt my nose in.

you and space are getting caught up on definitions.
neo-conservative which is a fairly new political philosophy from the 1960's by irving kristol,whose name you may recognize as bill-the bloody- kristol (weekly standard) father.

prior to neoconservatism was.../drum roll
neoliberalism.

the fundamental difference is what you alluded to newt,but in my opinion were far too gracious in your definition.
while neoconservatism is far more hawkish,seeing american and "manifest destiny" as her right,and being a global power has a right to use that power to serve her interests,even if that be way of military force.the ultimate goal is to spread american excellence to the world in the form of markets.we sell our awesome and they buy,and we extract what we need for our interests a.k.a business baby.

neoliberalism may be more "dovish" but the goals are the same:political and financial dominance.

and the results are very similar as well.
so while neoliberalism may use economic hitmen,the IMF and the GTO to impose the will of american buisiness,and the neoconservatives may rely on the military heavily..

countries are still stripped of their resources,their labor exploited and a starbucks on every corner.their sovereignty is more a suggestion than an actual respective entity.

both philosophies are abhorrent and destructive and cause incredible suffering....and death.

i am super high right now,so if i misread your guys conflict..please forgive.
if i read it right and helped..
you are welcome!

You have drunk the coolaid.

The people you describe are neoconservatives, not neoliberals.

Wars are profitable for the military industrial complex, which is almost entirely populated by the right...be they neocons or just cons.

Liberals and neoliberals want to open new markets so they can regulate them (ostensibly to help workers and the environment) not just to profit from them, although they want that too.

Once again you just spew hyperbole trash.

You can apologize after your read facts. You do know hat a fact is. It is truth. AS of 2014 24% of Americans describe themselves as Liberals and 37% conservative.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx


As for you call me a Necon. then you add you own definition is just stupid on your part.

From Webster Dictionary.
Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE
1
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2
: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
------------
Clearly I am not nor ever Item 1
Item 2 is promoting National interest abroad. clearly not what you defined. and B) you would probably fit under this definition.

Please if you are going to insult me please me intelligent about it.

Take your time take off you Liberal rose-colored glasses and realize the if it was not for Republicans there would be no civil rights legislation.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s75
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

Once again you talk smack.

The rationale for Assad in using chemical weapons is a group punishment of sorts for aiding the rebels. The conflict has been locked in back and forth territorial plays between Assad and the rebels. Dumping chemical weapons in a contested zone is a powerful psychological disincentive to the local civilian population in aiding the rebels.

Comparing this to Iraq '03 is misguided. Obama has shown no evidence of being a neoconservative, politically any serious involvement would be hugely damaging. There's good evidence to suggest that once Assad goes, there would be a civil war between the rebels for control. From there the rebels who come to power will likely be Islamic fundamentalists.

Besides, with fracking and CSG, the US is in a vastly different situation visa vi oil and gas, and either way Syria is hardly an oil slick. There's really little reason to get involved besides humanitarian reasons to act as disincentive to future dictators, at this point and I think it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

@Buck

The opposition to Assad is ragtag of mostly the local Sunni majority as the local Christians, Druze and Alawites have generally aligned themselves with Assad. They have little to nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The reporting I have read is saying the strongest insurgents who are doing the weight of the fighting are generally fundamentalist Islamists, they also seem to be receiving the bulk of the funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar unofficial groups who are sponsoring them.

The US is giving arms to purportedly moderate groups through the Supreme Military Council and Syrian Opposition Coalition political organisations, however it is not clear how extensive this program is.

@dystopianfuturetoday's list seems somewhat biased to me. I also appreciate him taking the time to provide links to his objections, kudos for that.

This is how I would honestly try to answer each of them, I think most can be dismissed, but some should be looked into.

Abortion

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on abortion, his political opinion is that it's not a Federal issue, it's a state's rights' issue because it's too controversial. So whether people like abortion or not, they have the choice of taking it up with their local governments.

Evolution

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on evolution. If I were a Christian, I'd have trouble dealing with the theory of evolution too, because I'd believe in a book written by God that says the universe was created in 6 days. I don't see how would that negatively influence him as a president or his policies.

Does not believe in separation of church and state

Sounds like total BS to me. That is just a very biased interpretation of the linked article. Libertarians understand separation of church and state because having them together is even more dangerous than fascism (corporations and state together). It threatens many liberties they hold dear, including free speech, religious freedom, sexual freedom and not using laws to impose morality.

Believes Education is not a right and wants to privatize all schools

Correct, unconstitutional, against libertarian ideals. Even though he'd like to privatize them all, he would have to stop at the Federal level and let states choose whether to run their own schools or privatize.

Wants to repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones

Correct, probably because it would encroach on guns rights, besides, it's in accordance with the point above: Federal government has no business educating children anyway, and should not impose gun restrictions on state-run schools, that's up to the states themselves.

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."

He does believe that global warming claims are a FUD tactic for environmental regulations at the Federal level.

Wants to get rid of FEMA and says we shouldn’t help people in disasters

Correct about FEMA being dispensable, but "we" means the Federal government. States can help. Private charities can help. Churches can help. Concerned individuals can help. Insurance companies can help.

Wants to build a fence at the US/Mexico Border

Wierd, I mean, it's in accordance with defending our borders, but seems like a costly idea.

Repeatedly has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy

I don't know what to say about that, sorry.

Pull out of the UN because "they have a secret plan to destroy the US"

He presented more than one reason to pull out of the UN. I personally agree that the UN is not in alignment with american values. I wish the UN all the best in whatever they want to achieve, but I don't think they should do it with the US' money and military, specially since we're broke and fighting too many wars as it is.

Disband NATO

Link is not working. NATO is a remnant of the Cold War era, it costs us money to outsource our military protection to other countries, disbanding NATO makes sense to me.

End birthright citizenship

Sounds like a reasonable position to me. He's in favor of immigrants entering the country, but birthright citizenship is a legal shortcut that is often abused and imposes an unnecessary burden on American citizens and the welfare system.

Deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style"

If he had his way, a lot of federal funding to all non-essential organizations would be denied, period. When it comes to the issue of homossexuality, regardless of his personal opinions, he seems to be arguing against using taxpayer money to promote or impose lifestyles taxpayers themselves might not approve of.

Hired former head of Anti Gay Group to be Iowa State Director of the campaign

I don't know, that's a tough one. That might reflect poorly on Ron Paul if this person was hired for being an anti-gay activist. Maybe he's just a good campaign director? I don't think Ron Paul is against homossexuals politically, and he's allowed the same level of homophobia as any other straight christian guy, as long as he doesn't project it into active anti-gay policies.

Wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard

Correct, even though he mostly talks about commodity-based currencies. He doesn't want to impose the gold standard, but allow competing currencies, in which case, I'm sure many people will prefer to use gold as money since it has been historically preferred for millenia.

He was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan

I don't understand that sentence and the link is broken, could you elaborate on it, please?

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys

Correct, as the linked article points out, he "frequently votes against measures expanding the federal government's reach". It doesn't mean Ron Paul is in favor of lead in children's toys, only that there are other more effective ways to ensure that children's toys don't have lead in them. Leave the Federal government out of this.

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal

Correct, not at the federal level, that is a states' issue. Whatever else he said on the subject is irrelevant.

Is against the popular vote

Correct, it's a libertarian thing. Libertarians like to protect minorities, namely the smallest and most numerous minority, which is the individual. That's why they always talk about individual rights. Democracy sometimes ignores and tramples over individuals in favor of the majority, so libertarians don't always regard democracy as this unquestionable improvement for civilization.

Wants the estate tax repealed

Correct, it's a useless tax in terms of revenue, most people waste as much money avoiding it than paying it, so it's destroying resources, and its not morally justified. Why would someone have to pay taxes when they die? Why pay taxes to inherit what someone rightfully gives you when they die?

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States

Don't know what to say about that. If it was built with US taxpayer money, maybe it should? Idk.

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website

This is bullshit. A picture of them together just implies they conspired to stand in front of a camera.

Keeps their donations
And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

Also, bullshit. Taking their money means he accepts their support, it does not mean that Ron Paul supports them. Like Ron Paul explained many times, it would be impractical to do a background check on all the hundreds of thousands of people who support him and send him money.

Has gone on record that he had no knowledge of the content of the racist newsletters that bore his name AND signature,
But has not only quoted them, but personally defended the newsletters in the past,
And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only "some of [it was] offensive."
...
Ron Paul's Newsletters. Scanned. See the originals for yourself. They're worse than they've been quoted for.

He didn't write it and they already found the guy responsible for the offensive content. Move on.

His issues with race go as far as to vote against the Rosa Parks medal (sole vote, again), saying it is a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...
Despite the fact that the bill itself is very clear about a separate fund. All profit from this fund is returned to the Treasury.
However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts
AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War

Ouch, I don't know what to say, at first it seems inconsistent. Maybe he doesn't have a perfect voting record after all. I'll look into that. I don't buy that he's against Rosa Parks or that there is any race issues involved.

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.

Endorsing the removal of federal regulations and the freedom that comes with that is not an endorsement of what people or states do with these freedoms.

His SuperPAC is headed by Thomas Woods who is the founder of the League of the South, of which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled a "racist hate group."

Bullshit, an exageration of guilt by association. Thomas Woods is not the founder, he was present at the founding. He contributed in a limited capacity and is no longer involved with that group. He also publicly admits to being a textbook neoconservative before changing his mind and becoming a Ron Paul supporter. I only expect Ron Paul to be consistent, not everyone who works for him or endorse him, people can change their minds and their ways.

Also in association with the League of the South via Thomas Woods is the Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is an Administrator...

Bullshit, exagerated guilt by an even more distant level of association. The Mises Institute is about austrian economics, most likely they're associated only in regards to their opinions on economics.

Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Very easy to misinterpret. He's partly against the Civil Rights Act regarding the regulations on private individuals and businesses that are open to the public because they reduce individual liberties. Makes sense for a libertarian to say such things.

Earmarks

I see it as Ron Paul making the most to get money back to the states and local communities using a flawed system.

And during his entire tenure, he has managed only one, out of 620, of his bills to get signed into law.

Can be considered a testament to his innefectiveness, or as a testament to his backbone, and how screwed up Congress and Washington is.

Ron Paul is not a constitutionalist. He is not a civil libertarian. He's a secessionist, a fundamentalist and a confederate.

And the guy who wrote that article is an Anti-Ron Paul nut.

Want more? Go here.

Maybe Slanderpedia.com would be more appropriate, btw I checked and the domain name is available!

>> ^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.

The smear campaign has begun by the established neoconservative base. They get booed, they attack by claiming Paul isn't electable.

>> ^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

The irony of Ron Paul is: I like the underlying idea VERY VERY much.
However I'd absolutely love to actually see him get down to details. HOW would he actually reduce the American military withdrawal as a World Police Force with doing as little additional damage as possible (You can't just stop the machines of the Military Compelx dead in their tracks- that would have absolutely horrible results- both economically and on a world-scape (Israel, Colombia, South Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq...).
How does his ideology of ptotecting other's lives extend into the right of abortion (Something I remember him being kinda ...meh).



AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: How can he implement this without breaking a system which has by now become VERY MUCH accustomed to all the shady deals he so much despises and WITHOUT breaking the world economy and creating an ugly power vaccuum.
This guy unfortunately is not young enough anymore to become a pioneer. He seems more like someone we'd very much be disillusioned with once he runs into the actual political roadblocks that exist.

The irony of bush and the neoconservatives is that they aspired to achieve a situation like it is now happening in the middle east (albeit a very warped version of) something which IS ACTUALLY happening NOW (though probably without any causes lying in the US).
This will NEED the American military complex and extroverted American foreign policies to work.

Ron Paul would need at least 3 terms to push what he works for. It's just that difficult. And I can't see a second Ron Paul behind him who'd continue once he is worn down (if you know more than me please PM me)

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
@quantumushroom
Seriously, how do you propose this country fix itself? Vote the same cookie-cutters in?
And I can't believe a true blooded conservative neoconservative (I think that's what you are) is crying that "all's fair in love gay marriages and war withdrawal of troops" is unfair. We want two votes and are strong/smart enough to get em, we take em.


FTFY

Its a sad trend that people target Islam as the source of oppression. Religion is an ideology, like anything else. That means it occurs within a context of economics, state-apparatuses, class interest, racism and patriarchy. Religion becomes an extension of these power relationships. The religion doesn't matter, its the class forces behind it. Any religion can become oppressive so long as the conditions of power exist to cause that to happen in the first place. To target religion, then, is to target a symptom, not a source.

You can claim that Islam is *naturally* misogynistic. This is false. Few religions will be *naturally* anything. Evidence of this lies in the vast differences between interpretations of religion. What is more accurate is to analyze how this religion fits into the interests of ruling elite, how they exert their hegemony through religion, etc.

Please, stop focusing your energy on Islam as evil. That is a neoconservative lie created to make a split in internationalism more severe. It is instead the material system that the religion finds itself in that is evil, namely, capitalism. Not to say that an ideology is incapable of being "X or Y". Just that these variables are less potent than the concrete material limits of economic and racial systems.

Obama is no marxist. His policies are centrist liberal. Yes, he cut some taxes but they are not enough.

Furthermore, let's not forget the policies of Reagan were an antidote to the high inflation caused by the military Keynesianism/supposed golden era of Liberalism of the post war boom period (1945-67). Unions were too strong and corrupt, durable and nondurable good consumption started falling in the late 60's, the emergence of OPEC, the expansion of the communist menace leading us into Vietnam, various conflicts to combat Marxist-Leninist-Maonist armed resistence groups taking power under political party fronts and an arms race with the Soviets and off the gold standard...While Europe had their social welfare experiment, we were busy policing the globe.

After the Volcker shock of 1979 (boosted IR to 20%) this lead to the financialization of the economy and the move away from manufacturing. All of this happened under the Carter Administration. Realizing the golden era of liberalism was untenable it brought the inevitable Reagan to prominence whose new regime (following the prescription of Milton Freidman and others was to allow consumers and the market to decide and to decrease the centralized control of government) - as denationalization of the public sector was the only way to create more opportunities and jobs. Cheap credit was not only championed by Wall Street as an antitode to problems, but was also championed by Democrats.

Democrats were almost completely unelectable in the White House until Bill Clinton and his administration (was Republican lite in essence as enacting Welfare Reform and setting the infrastructure for the War in Iraq and following the financial privitization schemes of the Chicago School, the FED fueled dotcom and mortgage bubble which created the much ballyhooed and fictitiuous Clinton surplus) is the reason for the financial deregulation in the late 90's (Clinton is now distancing himself from Rubin and Summers regading derivatives). The Neoconservatives and Democrats have much in common - as they both believe in crazy spending. Neocons through military (some of which does create nascent industries of the future), and Democrats who spend on any frivoulous social programs that work to break states and keep their politicos electable. Where is the incentive to become a producer in this country? If you are not paying high taxes you are competing against government subsidized monopolies (stop whining for more jobs when you overregulate ad penalize big corporations for doing what they need to do to make profits). The Democrats kill the ability to start a small to medium sized business thus making it more attractive to join big firms - that everyone continues to attack - sending them racing abroad.

And last time I checked the "real left" - which Obama distances himself from for good reason - is too busy scratching their heads ain petty sectarianism about how all of their wonderfully utopian ideas caused over 70 years of dreary totalitarianism. Seems the working class in the US now wants nothing to do with them. They want Palin. While you upper middle class liberals eat organic, sip latte's, do your hipster environmental thing and make fun of these people - they are forming the next grassroots that will be a vital contituency to covet.

These people may not be smart - but know that Obama is untrustworthy if he thinks the Federal Government can spend its way out of this mess, not understanding that for every 1/2 cent we have saved we still owe 2 dollars and that if we start increasing our deficits to create new jobs, the Chinese will sell off their currency reserves which are in dollars and then...

Netrunner,

Seeing that it's Richmond VA, I would believe the bullet fired skyward.

Also, I never said that I believed this guy. In fact after I posted this video I looked him up. He is a typical neoconservative douche bag.

I guess since you've thoroughly lost this argument, you want to dig up an older one where you think you won?

Here's what you're characterizing as "evidence you believe in Nazism on a 'visceral level'":

7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.

I don't know what this means. I suspect they're not talking about welfare, but things like interest, generic capital gains, rent collection, etc.

I find this idea appealing on a visceral level, but I don't ultimately believe this is the way to address the issue of the idle and clearly undeservedly rich (like Paris Hilton).

8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.

Another one I find appealing on a visceral level. I think this is easier said than done though. On the one hand, I think it's a bit unavoidable that someone will make a profit off wars, even if it's just the funeral service, and we shouldn't necessarily begrudge every ounce of it. I also think a lot of the profit being made now is because we keep giving our military a huge amount of leeway to buy unproven, expensive toys that have questionable battlefield value (e.g. the F-22). The old-fashioned meaning of this is that someone is intentionally starting or prolonging a war just to make a profit. I think this is frankly what the "neoconservatives" are really about. They don't really give a shit who we fight, they just want us eternally at war so their defense contractor friends will stay constantly flush with cash, which they can freely donate to their reelection campaigns.

However, if we could clearly identify illicit profit, I'd have no qualms with confiscating it, and donating it to humanitarian relief organizations working the battlezone.

Neoconservative n00bs.