2
   

Neo-Conservatives

 
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 05:22 am
"implying that indeed Republicans had so characterized Kerry, a patently false assertion"

Oh Puhleez Timberlandko! It's a fact, not a false assertion! No matter how many words you use to try to disprove it!! The ad was put out by the GOP!!!

"Smear by presenting documented fact relating to the actions of the supporters of one's opponent?"

WHAT documented fact? That Kerry looks like or behaves like Hitler? Obviously that commercial is the smear referred to as the start of the smear campaign, and it's NO FACT.

The republican party is sinking to new lows. Why defend those kind of actions?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 07:22 am
Embarrassing and shameful only among those who seem to think it is necessary to insult and demean the other side in order to promote one's own agenda. That tactic is always shameful whenever employed by whichever side and invariably weakens one's argument.

My signature line is intentional. I think there is plenty of room for liberalism in the American fabric and I think it is necessary to keep the conservative propensity for not-always-thoroughly-thought-out absolutes in check. A serious and well considered liberal view also forces conservatives to defend their own point of view and this sometimes does expose flaws in the policy of the day.

After surviving my own flaming liberal youth, I now believe conservativism in general, when based on proved principles, does overall provide opportunity, hope, and compassion in its deepest sense as well as being more defensible when it comes to matters of promoting the common welfare and providing for the national defense.

I dislike the term 'bleeding hearts liberal' too, except in good natured teasing, and I wince sometimes at the word 'neo con' because of the negative connotations many liberals have attached to it. I wish we could discuss the prevailing issues of the day without demonizing each other.

I believe, for example, it is possible to oppose 'gay marriage' while not being the least bit oppressive, discriminatory, or homophobic. I believe it is conversely possible to promote gay marriage with no desire, intent, or faith that it will destroy the institution of marriage or weaken families. Somewhere bebween the two points of view is a reasonable compromise that will be found only when the two camps stop accusing each other of bad motives and start looking for the compromise.

Too often however, it is easier to attack the person than actually think about what the person says.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 07:51 am
What if you are a liberal, and actually have a bleeding heart? I imagine you would have to go to the hospital, whether or not they agree with your politics. In this scenario, I think "bleeding heart, liberal" would be an appropriate description.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 07:52 am
LOL yeah well, that discussion should be in the medical forum Smile
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 08:09 am
timberlandko wrote:
Sorry for the mis-appelation there, Joe ... my fault entirely. That happens sometimes when I've got several threads open at one time; I'm easy to confuse.

I'm beginning to see your point.

timberlandko wrote:
Do you purport them to be a non partisan organization? Do you suggest their partisanship is other than Democratic Party oriented?

Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party is responsible for the actions of groups that are sympathetic to it? Would that rule apply with equal force to the GOP?

timberlandko wrote:
Quote:
2. The "Hitler ad" submitted to MoveOn.Org was done by an individual not affililiated with MoveOn.Org, the Democratic Party, or the Kerry campaign.
And was not it submitted with intent of furtherence of the cause of The Democratic Party?

Are you suggesting that any ad submitted with the intent to assist the Democratic Party is attributable to the Democratic Party? Would that rule apply with equal force to the GOP?

timberlandko wrote:
Quote:
3. The GOP's "Hitler ad," in contrast, was paid for and approved by the Bush-Cheney campaign.
And it used a bit of opposition-sourced propaganda to illustrate what it perceives to be the hypocracy of The Opposition. Tarring the villain from his own pot, so to speak.

Only if everyone portrayed in the ad were in the same "pot," so to speak.

timberlandko wrote:
Quote:
It is, to say the least, laughable to suggest that the "left played the Nazi card" first,

No it is not; they did.

How do you reconcile this statement with your previous assertion:
timberlandko wrote:
As to "Who" was "First" ... hardly relevant.

Hmmm?

timberlandko wrote:
Not The Democratic Party, per se, admittedly, but the card decidedly was first played in this instance by "The Left"; the piece in question was created and submitted by an individual or individuals of leftist persuasuion to a contest of clear and specifically directed political intent sponsored by an activist organization itself of clear leftist persuasion. Do you dispute that?

Why is that important? If David Duke, white supremacist KKK'er and crypto-fascist, expressed his support for timberlandko, would I be entitled to assert that you were a racist anti-semite Nazi?

timberlandko wrote:
For what ourpose beyond the furtherence of the Democratic Party's quest to elect its candidates does MoveOn exist? And for what cause beyond the election of its candidates, anong whom John Kerry is titular chief, does The Democratic Party exist?

Are you suggesting that entities that share a common purpose are identical? So, for instance, one anti-abortion group is identical to another? Then the actions of Paul Hill, anti-abortion activist and murderer, are attributable to the Republican Party, right?

timberlandko wrote:
Quote:
I will, however, give the GOP points for consistency: after all, this wouldn't be the first time the Republicans have identified one enemy and then launched an attack on an entirely different target.
Perhaps the only valid criticism you leveled. I don't buy it though, but then I apparently see "The Target" differently than do you.

No doubt. But we've already noted your apparent confusion.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 08:24 am
As for Moveon.org, it is entirely a coincidence of the values of its founders that it supports many of the goals of the Democratic party. The group was originally a bi-partisan organization founded in 1998 with the intent of getting Congress to "move on" with business, and forget the Clinton impeachment business. Wes Boyd and Joan Blades, the cofounders of the entertainment software company, Berkeley Systems, had sold out for a tidy profit in 1997. They became concerned that the nation's necessary political processes were being sidetracked while the impeachment furor was at its height. Although they initially recieved bi-partisan support on that basis, they have since advocated a leftist agenda which has lost them the support of Republicans with whom the "move on from impeachment" message had originally resonated.

MoveOn.org has a political agenda far to the left of the Democratic Party, which has become increasingly conservative in recent years. Even by "the party of FDR" standards, MoveOn is to the left. Conservative posters here get very upset when Republican agendae and messages are conflated with extremist such as David Dukes or Paul Hill. There is no more justice in any attempt by a Conservative to equate the DNC with MoveOn.org.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 09:37 am
Asherman wrote:
How is my post not civil? The Roundtable is gone, though it was only supposed to be temporary. Do you deny that most conservative A2K members avoid the political threads?

I actually have the opposite impression. No doubt those who lean Republican are in a clear minority on this forum. But those who do frequent this forum, seem to overwhelmingly or exclusively spend their time on political threads. Which probably negatively influences the feedback they get; you react differently to people whom you know for all kinds of stuff about their personality, rather than just their political opinion.

Asherman wrote:
I had never heard of FreeRepublic.com until it was mentioned in the posting above. I just visited the site, and didn't find anything there that was a problem. Seemed to be mostly a compilation of newstories slanted toward the GOP point of view. The editorials looked like Republican editorials. I didn't see any rabid attacks on Kerry, the Democratic Party, or even "liberals" in general.

In this post you will find a sample of the kind of posts that make the Freerepublic boards notorious. (They referred to the Wisconsinian woman whose death notice asked for memorials in her honor to be "made to any organization working for the removal of President Bush").
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 09:41 am
The mere idea that Kerry and the Democratic party can be accused of comparing Bush with Hitler, because some individual radical was among the many hundreds of people who sent in an ad that did so in a competition organised by one of the organisations that supports the Dems, is so inane I cant even imagine someone would take it seriously. But there it is, proponed in a Bush ad on all the airwaves.

Timber, you yourself are usually among the first to say that both sides have their fools and spooks - how do you possibly deduce from the evidence of one such spook's existence on the left any kind of description of "The Left"?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 10:15 am
Oh, I don't say that one kook personifies The Left, just that that kook is a leftist kook; there are, as noted, plenty of rightist kooks, too. I think, BTW, the GOP ad at discussion was in poor taste and ill advised. None the less, I note that despite having claimed to have done so, MoveOn did not in fact remove the item from their website, but merely renamed it, and that again, so far as I'm aware (and there may be relevant info of which I am unaware) that, no official repudiation of the original was offered by the affected principals (MoveOn/Dem Party) in specific. Further, I'll note it is my impression The Republican Party has more specifically expressed its rejection of such as clinic bombers and the KKK than has the Democratic Party from such as ELF or the like. I could be wrong. A broad brush paints both ways, and both sides employ the broadest of brushes on just about any occasion that comes to mind. Thats the nature of partisanship.

Its just that you lefties are so mean about it, whereas we reasonable folk do so with decorum and all due respect Twisted Evil :wink:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 11:15 am
timberlandko wrote:
None the less, I note that despite having claimed to have done so, MoveOn did not in fact remove the item from their website, but merely renamed it, and that again, so far as I'm aware (and there may be relevant info of which I am unaware) that, no official repudiation of the original was offered by the affected principals (MoveOn/Dem Party) in specific. Further, I'll note it is my impression The Republican Party has more specifically expressed its rejection of such as clinic bombers and the KKK than has the Democratic Party from such as ELF or the like. I could be wrong.

Yes, you're wrong.

GOP Won't Rap Shoah Language Of Republicans
By ERIC MARX
The Forward, Jan. 16, 2004

Despite pressure from various sources, the Republican National Committee and allied organizations are declining to speak out against two conservatives, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and New York Post columnist Ralph Peters, who compared opponents of the Bush administration to Nazis.

The RNC led the charge last month against the liberal Web site MoveOn.org for allowing users to post two 30-second videos comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler. The videos were posted as entries in a MoveOn.org contest soliciting model campaign ads and sparked a flood of protest from across the political spectrum.

In a telephone call to the Forward and in later statements to the general press, MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd voiced "regret for not having filtered... out" the Bush-as-Hitler submissions. He noted that the controversial ads "of course got very bad scores and are not at all finalists in our contest."

The Hitler ads and the Peters column were both criticized this week in a statement issued by the Anti-Defamation League calling on both parties to refrain from using Holocaust language as a political attack tool. It made no mention of Norquist, a prominent conservative activist with strong ties to the White House.

When contacted by the Forward, RNC spokeswoman Heather Layman declined to condemn Norquist for comparing proponents of the estate tax to the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Meanwhile, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Matt Brooks, who also criticized MoveOn, has kept quiet about Norquist.

Officials at the Democratic National Committee and the National Jewish Democratic Council noted that they had criticized both Norquist and the Hitler videos.

"The Grover piece strikes me as much more ludicrous because he compares those who favor tax increases to Nazis, and he is someone of great power and influence in this country; he claims he drives administration policy," said Ira Forman, executive director of the Jewish Democratic council.

"You expect the RNC to play partisan politics and that's fair," Forman said. "But," he added, referring to tax cuts, "you don't expect them to be so crass and so insensitive with one of their favorites on something as sensitive as the Holocaust."

In addition to not rebuking Norquist, conservatives have refused to condemn Peters, who in a January 5 column headlined "Howard the Coward," compared Democrat frontrunner Howard Dean to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, and Dean's supporters to "Hitler's Brownshirts" and the Gestapo. Writing in the New York Post, a key component of Rupert Murdoch's pro-Bush media empire, Peters compared "Herr Howie" to such Soviet Communist leaders as Vladimir Lenin, Leonid Brezhnev and Mikhail Gorbachev.

The apparent unwillingness of conservatives to speak out against members of their own camp was criticized by Ann Lewis, an official at the DNC who served as White House communications director in the Clinton administration. "Until we are prepared to use a single standard for excesses on both sides, you don't bring much credibility to the debate," Lewis said. "I'm still waiting to hear from the RNC what they think about Grover Norquist."

Norquist made his comments during an October interview with NPR, but they have drawn increasing attention after Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen ridiculed them in a recent article.

In his interview with NPR, Norquist criticized the argument that the estate tax was worth keeping because it affects only "2% of Americans."

"I mean, that's the morality of the Holocaust," Norquist said. "'Well, it's only a small percentage,' you know. I mean, it's not you. It's somebody else."

Layman said any comparison between Norquist's commments and the ads on the MoveOn site was unfair. The RNC spokeswoman added: "I think there is a difference there from comparing the president of the U.S. to Adolph Hitler."

Another RNC spokeswoman, Christine Iverson, said that her party would denounce any Republican presidential ad comparing Democrats to Hitler.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 12:11 pm
I guess I must be missin' somethin' here ... I don't see your obviously painstakingly crafted rebuttal in fact serves to rebut the point I was making ... but again, that's prolly just a function of viewpoint. I will note too I feel that Norquist's referrenced commentary was partisanly miscontstrued, and I find most salient and am in full agreement with RNC' spokesperson Layman's comment that " ... "I think there is a difference there from comparing the president of the U.S. to Adolph Hitler." Iverson's declaration that The Republican Party would denounce any Republican presidential ad comparing Democrats to Hitler is quite to the point, which point being that the Republicans did not compare Democrats to Hitler but rather pointed out in their own ad through use of the MoveOn-sourced ad that among those championing the Democratic Party's cause were some that specifically and unambiguosly compared The Incumbent to Hitler. Cheapshots both ways, IMO.
0 Replies
 
limbodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 12:26 pm
neocon
neo = new
conservative = (in a political sense) preferring small carefully planned changes in a political system.

In my opinion the neo-cons as they are called today are neither new nor conservative. It is simply a term employed to indicate, in a broad sense, those who are very right leaning in their political ideals.

antonym of the so-called "liberals".
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 02:40 pm
agrote wrote:
Have you ever actually formulated an argument or expressed any kind of opinion, or do you just spend all of your time on here quoting the dictionary?


I have nearly 5000 posts on this forum that would answer that question. If you click on my username you can find all of them.

Since you are new here, agrote, let me remind you that when you established your own username you agreed to abide by the Terms of Service, which forbid personal attacks and name-calling and the like.

We attack the ideas here, not the people.

I'll ask that you exhibit greater effort at meeting the TOS and refrain from the ad hominems, please.

When a person resort to epithets, they have run out of arguments, which is a back-handed way of conceding the point (whether you knew that or not).

Are there any contentions in my posts in this thread that you would like to discuss?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 03:52 pm
Dammit, PDiddie, I deeply resent your having provided me nothing with which to disagree :wink:
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 04:20 pm
PDiddie wrote:
When a person resort to epithets, they have run out of arguments, which is a back-handed way of conceding the point (whether you knew that or not).


I have not actually taken any part in this debate, so as to whether I've run out of arguments, I never actually had any in the first place! Except for the argument that your method of debate is PEDANTIC. But this is a personal issue, so I will refrain from continuing to complain about it, for fear of being kicked off the site. But let me add that I don't think I have used any "epithets," if an epithet is, as my dictionary tells me, "An abusive or contemptuous word or phrase." Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 04:24 pm
OK by me.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 04:34 pm
Well; now we can sip a few beers and be buds again.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 07:57 pm
PDiddie wrote:
agrote wrote:
Have you ever actually formulated an argument or expressed any kind of opinion, or do you just spend all of your time on here quoting the dictionary?


I have nearly 5000 posts on this forum that would answer that question. If you click on my username you can find all of them.

Since you are new here, agrote, let me remind you that when you established your own username you agreed to abide by the Terms of Service, which forbid personal attacks and name-calling and the like.

We attack the ideas here, not the people.

I'll ask that you exhibit greater effort at meeting the TOS and refrain from the ad hominems, please.

When a person resort to epithets, they have run out of arguments, which is a back-handed way of conceding the point (whether you knew that or not).

Are there any contentions in my posts in this thread that you would like to discuss?

This is the purest piece of **** I've ever seen here.
Hilarious.
agrote--Don't concern yourself. This guy is the first to turn a conversation ino a personal attack, and lives for ad hominem.

I do feel better now though, knowing each time he did it, he was obviously conceding my point, as his patient description above reveals. I guess I can feel better about all the personal insults from now on.

*Wonder how many of those 5000 contain some form of rude, personal comment. (Check that out before you start quivering, agrote.)

**Wonder if his ratio is worse than mine...
Smile
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 08:22 pm
Well, we can still enjoy the beer, can't we?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 08:29 pm
Scootch over a tad, eb ... lemme get these.

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0UQAAAFwZqSkdvyTrDOtcjkn1WGtNGiv7e4Pke9Lnh9gBHJYAV3Q2NrKhwsuu*g1wgZPFYQy3ZD7Pe2XFcUTaS3LNYNSqaDvxS8POX2GpuhcwRLPIkUB5vCJ2mTwVOyGd/Drunk-with-Beer.gif
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Neo-Conservatives
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 11:59:28