Philosophers and Kings

[Corn]

The fact that we still haven't found much of anything, either through us looking or Saddam using it against us, is evidence enough against most of those statements.

We can all thank our lucky stars that you are not a lawyer. Lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself. Your "evidence" is merely assumption.

As far as "thinking logically", I already posted the following earlier in this thread:

The fact that WMD have not yet been found does not mean that Bush lied about them (the subject of editorial provided by Moonie). On the contrary, if it were a lie, one would assume that reasonable measures would be taken to support and cover that lie; the most obvious being discovery of evidence of WMD before Bush's political opponents would have had an opportunity to use this lack of evidence as a tool against him.

 

[Corn]

Moonie, don't know what to say. The Eisenhower speech you posted here is unfamiliar to me in it's form. Perhaps you condensed it down to a single paragraph, and as such bears little resemblance to his complete speech you've quoted here.

I'll address you inquiry regarding the "neocons" later this evening, I must do the bidding of my wife at the moment........

 

[Moonbeam]

I heard that the NYTimes, another commie paper was reporting today that at least one highly respected intelligence analysist suggested pressure to supply the politically correct info on Iraq. I know that the Republican vote to hold secret hearings implies great faith that Bush has nothing to worry about here.

I condensed it (eISENHOWER)rather little, as I remember, Corn, trying to capture his sentiments on the dangers of the military industrial complex and a fondness for war. The final was still rather lengthy.

Is there a way to search beyond 90 days? Will look forward to the neocon stuff. Have fun.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Corn

The fact that we still haven't found much of anything, either through us looking or Saddam using it against us, is evidence enough against most of those statements.

We can all thank our lucky stars that you are not a lawyer. Lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself. Your "evidence" is merely assumption.

Assuming Bush's accusations were accurate, there would be tangible proof of them being so at this point. The fact that there is none is damn good evidence that they were in fact false. Sort of like the admin's argument that if Saddam had indeed destroyed his WMD's, there would be proof of that, no? But to give them credit, it looks like they were right about that.

As far as "thinking logically", I already posted the following earlier in this thread:

The fact that WMD have not yet been found does not mean that Bush lied about them (the subject of editorial provided by Moonie). On the contrary, if it were a lie, one would assume that reasonable measures would be taken to support and cover that lie; the most obvious being discovery of evidence of WMD before Bush's political opponents would have had an opportunity to use this lack of evidence as a tool against him.

Again, I wasn't arguing that he lied, I was arguing that he was (at best) wrong. And he was. Very, very few of his accusations have panned out. I'll be the first to admit that it was probably a pretty safe bet we would find WMD to some extent in Iraq. I have no doubt the admin assumed they'd find something to hype up much like they did before the war and everyone would buy into it. But the admin has found something even better than evidence to back them up now. They've found they don't need any. It's damn hard to prove someone is lying, but if you catch them trying to cover up that lie, then bam, they're busted. And with the polls showing 1/4 of US citizens believe them with no evidence, and 1/2 not caring one way or the other, there is no reason for them to take the chance. A simple shift of focus from WMD to liberation (which I suspect was expected to happen from early on, hence the name of the war) to appease the masses and the stressing of WMD 'programs' now to cover anything they may find and this admin is pretty much golden.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Moonbeam, there's an option in advanced search to search archives. I don't know if you need to be a subscriber or not, what's a good search phrase?


As for the neo-cons, I'll say this in short: there is a lot to be learned from them. However you interpret that is likely one among many good interpretations.

 

[zantac]

Originally posted by: Dari
you obviously didn't read the whole article and chose not to quote the entire paragraph.

you also forget that neo-conservatism was a democratic (as in Democratic Party) movement in the 1950s and 1960s. It was started and mainly composed of common sense democrats who opposed the left-wing ideologies that were taking over the party. this splinter group still retains some of the fundamental beliefs of the Democratic Party, but saw a changing world and adjusted to it. I guess instead of calling them neo-cons or "fascists," you're better of calling them realists.

and neo-conservatism was based on the 1920's New Era philosophy and this philosophy founded by your "realists" led up to the good ol' depression

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: zantac

Originally posted by: Dari
you obviously didn't read the whole article and chose not to quote the entire paragraph.

you also forget that neo-conservatism was a democratic (as in Democratic Party) movement in the 1950s and 1960s. It was started and mainly composed of common sense democrats who opposed the left-wing ideologies that were taking over the party. this splinter group still retains some of the fundamental beliefs of the Democratic Party, but saw a changing world and adjusted to it. I guess instead of calling them neo-cons or "fascists," you're better of calling them realists.

and neo-conservatism was based on the 1920's New Era philosophy and this philosophy founded by your "realists" led up to the good ol' depression

To Dari:

Three things.

1. I obviously did read the whole thing, and understand it very well thank you very much.

2. The Democrat party back then was essentially the Republican party now

and

3. Since clearly neo conservatism is a clearly an ideology; how are idealists... realists? It's a contradiction.

 

[Moonbeam]

Good rev, I tried again, this time with my user name and voila, I found it:

The Great Moonbeam Swindle

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Corn
Moonie, don't know what to say. The Eisenhower speech you posted here is unfamiliar to me in it's form. Perhaps you condensed it down to a single paragraph, and as such bears little resemblance to his complete speech you've quoted here.

I'll address you inquiry regarding the "neocons" later this evening, I must do the bidding of my wife at the moment........

I remember this well, and why you would not want too.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hay, wait till he finds out who actually wrote the Scheer article.

 

[Zebo]

We can all thank our lucky stars

How old are you corn? 70?

This thread sucks. Now moonies thread back in 02' kicked ass. Makes you think what makes us great is not the power but the ideas we fostered with that power.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: zantac

Originally posted by: Dari
you obviously didn't read the whole article and chose not to quote the entire paragraph.

you also forget that neo-conservatism was a democratic (as in Democratic Party) movement in the 1950s and 1960s. It was started and mainly composed of common sense democrats who opposed the left-wing ideologies that were taking over the party. this splinter group still retains some of the fundamental beliefs of the Democratic Party, but saw a changing world and adjusted to it. I guess instead of calling them neo-cons or "fascists," you're better of calling them realists.

and neo-conservatism was based on the 1920's New Era philosophy and this philosophy founded by your "realists" led up to the good ol' depression

To Dari:

Three things.

1. I obviously did read the whole thing, and understand it very well thank you very much.

2. The Democrat party back then was essentially the Republican party now

and

3. Since clearly neo conservatism is a clearly an ideology; how are idealists... realists? It's a contradiction.

the democratic party in the 1960s was slowly turning into a liberal outpost where an influx of socialist refugees from the McCartney era could call home. the neocons left the party because it was getting left behind by a changing world.

while there may be ideologies in neoconservatism (as in any other movement), when those ideologies are the result of experience, and when the experience forces practical change, then it becomes reality. no contradiction here. fact is, there are many democrats and republicans that can easily be called neocons; McCain and Lieberman, to an extent, come to mind. They're practical people. People like Trent Lott are definitely not neocons.

 

[Corn]

Moonie, I wish you to go revisit that thread. Specifically I want you to read the quote I objected to. Then read the following sentence (which I did not quote) . I would then like you to compare it to the actual text of Eisenhower's speech.

My objection was acknowledged by Eisenhower himself in the actual text of his speech, and my objection stands now, as it did then: Good words, but nothing more. The man who uttered them couldn't live up to them......easy words to say when you don't have the responsibility (which he at that point no longer had) to millions of people resting on one's shoulders.

 

[Corn]

Hay, wait till he finds out who actually wrote the Scheer article.

Umm, Sheer perhaps?

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I haven't caught up on this thread or the moonbeam swindle yet, but I wanted to say hands down the best post from it is by Czar:

great read
Moonbeam for president!

for it's gross irony. That was hilarious.

Anyway, back to my paper on Utopia. >_<

 

[Moonbeam]

So Corn, where's the neocon critique?

 

[Corn]

So Corn, where's the neocon critique?

They wear drab clothing.

Sorry, what is it specifically about the neocons that would you like my opinion? It's kinda like asking my opinion about liberals, that's a lot of ground to cover in one post, and well, it would end up looking kinda schizophrenic--some ideals I would go along with, some I wouldn't. Same goes with all segments of our political/societal melting pot. Give me a spring board........

 

[Corn]

Oh hell........

There are aspects of neoconservatism that I do agree with: Substantial investment of resources into the military, and the laudable goal of working from a position of dominance in the world economy.

Through and through I align myself with the ideals of Rebpulicanism, no so much what it stands for today, but for what it was formed: principles incorporated into the workings of government which help guard against the excesses or tyranny of both the majority and minority factions; principles that promote the general welfare of the community as a whole by treating every person equally and guarding each individual persons rights.

Neoconservatives have taken over the Republican party at the federal level; GW Bush was their perfect candidate to hijack the party, every bit as much as Regan was. Bush wasn't my first choice for President because he is too liberal in his opinions regarding the breadth of scope for the federal government and its budget.

For the most part, I am the opposite of the neocons; my personal belief that the federal government should be less intrusive and me being being a social liberal.

 

[Moonbeam]

I was particularly interested in whether you had picked up on the most fundamentally dangerous dimension of the notion, the elite notion that these practitioners are in tough with reality, that they adjust action to fit 'a new reality', particularly preemptive war as a response to terrorism. This is actually a codification of cowardice given free reign because the philosophy masquerades as secular humanism, that truth is relative and the long held absolutes of our civilization, our inalienable rights, are just delusions to be dispensed with upon contact with the first sign of threat. A neocon is a coward without a moral center whose fear is great enough to rationalize killing you me and anybody else who becomes a part of their paranoid delusional reality. A neocon is a psychopath with a need for control and unrestrained by moral law. Their reality is the compulsive thought produced by deeply suppressed fear. These are the people who have given over to the dark side. The guarding of each individual persons rights, is a luxury they can't afford. The ideals, the moral values, the freedoms our society is founded on they will not trust to succeed in open court because they do not really believe in them. They are to far separated from a capacity to feel their human instincts to trust in anything so seemingly naive. It is the means that is important to them and any means will justify their ends.

Are they not something akin to the anti-Christ? You're the one trained in religion. I just got a hunch. Help me out, just as an aside.

 

[LunarRay]

MB,
Are they not something akin to the anti-Christ? You're the one trained in religion. I just got a hunch. Help me out, just as an aside.

****************

The best and actual way to determine the identity of the Anti-Christ is to dig up some of the Sufi secret manuscripts and deduce the number of the name from their coded references.

The Neo-Con just practice an abstract of evil. Not real evil in the biblical sense but, evil in the 'world' sense. On second thought perhaps it is the fulfillment of prophesy.

 

[Corn]

I was particularly interested in whether you had picked up on the most fundamentally dangerous dimension of the notion, the elite notion that these practitioners are in tough with reality, that they adjust action to fit 'a new reality', particularly preemptive war as a response to terrorism.

Yep, but not so much as a response to terrorism, that has been their MO since their decisive split with the Democrats in the 50's and 60's: Liberals grounded in reality. Don't be too hard on them for their elitist attitude Moonie, they are, after all, liberals.

Are they the anti-christ? Nah. Reactionary? What good liberal isn't? Cowards? I don't think I would go that far. The fact is that 9/11 did expose our vulnerability to attack. As I had pointed out in the swindle thread, some principles and ideals are easy to preach when the responsibility of millions doesn't rest on your shoulders. Who voted for the patriot act? House Democrats overwhelmingly supported the Patriot Act with the majority voting in favor. The Senate was nearly unanimous in it's vote. Thankfully, and appropriately so, there is a sunset clause to this act.

They certainly aren't my buddies, you Democrats can have them back.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't want them. They are interested in power, not people. They are more appropriately alligned with the fascist leanings in the Republican party. The decidence of the left is, unfortunately, a convenient way to hide their own.

 

[Corn]

They are more appropriately alligned with the fascist leanings in the Republican party.

Should read: They are the purveyors of fascist tentencies in the Republican party. It's because of them that the Republican party (on the federal level) does not resemble Republicanism......

My ideal? Our previous governor, John Engler. Democrats hate him because he was a real Republican, and governed the State of Michigan appropriately as one.

Engler for President!

 

[Zebo]

Who in thier right mind would vote against soething called the "patriot act" not many and surly not many since it was close to the 2002 elections. I can just hear the TV ads for someone voting against this act after 911.

All politicians are spineless do nothings about the real issues. Everything is symbolism over substance all While railroading the individual.

 

[Moonbeam]

All politicians pander to fear and are therefore genetically predisposed not to resist it.

My, version, Corn, though perhaps less flattering, is I think closer to the truth. I think the neocon recruits are coming from the right, not the left.