Philosophers and Kings

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Well this has been an informative thread. I have learned that neocons are the most dangerous group in politics since the Nazi Party in Germany, and for the same reasons. Now I know who to vote against.

considering that you're comparing them against Nazis is not surprising. In fact, it seems like everytime there is a republican in office (Nixon, Reagan, Bush senior and junior) Europeans like to compare that administration to nazi germany. Democrats are more welcome. I won't question your intelligence since it's so blatant for all to see.

Quite frankly you may question anything you like, including my intelligence. I have no question about your morals, or lack thereof. Interesting you include Nixon in your lineup. I am sure it beyond your ability to understand why he is considered a scroundrel. Oh, I would wager you could mouth the words, but cannot understand them for what they mean. I have known low people in high places, and I would not sing their praises. You would, as long as it suits your ends. That is what makes neocons dangerous, but again, the understanding of that is as beyond you as the concept of beauty is to a machine. You are blind, and if your kind were not so dangerous, I would pity you for it.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Well this has been an informative thread. I have learned that neocons are the most dangerous group in politics since the Nazi Party in Germany, and for the same reasons. Now I know who to vote against.

considering that you're comparing them against Nazis is not surprising. In fact, it seems like everytime there is a republican in office (Nixon, Reagan, Bush senior and junior) Europeans like to compare that administration to nazi germany. Democrats are more welcome. I won't question your intelligence since it's so blatant for all to see.

Quite frankly you may question anything you like, including my intelligence. I have no question about your morals, or lack thereof. Interesting you include Nixon in your lineup. I am sure it beyond your ability to understand why he is considered a scroundrel. Oh, I would wager you could mouth the words, but cannot understand them for what they mean. I have known low people in high places, and I would not sing their praises. You would, as long as it suits your ends. That is what makes neocons dangerous, but again, the understanding of that is as beyond you as the concept of beauty is to a machine. You are blind, and if your kind were not so dangerous, I would pity you for it.

WTF wouldn't I consider Nixon in that line-up? Last time I checked, he was a Republican and Europeans hated him.

you are another hopeless romantic. And your description of me is entirely false.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Well this has been an informative thread. I have learned that neocons are the most dangerous group in politics since the Nazi Party in Germany, and for the same reasons. Now I know who to vote against.

considering that you're comparing them against Nazis is not surprising. In fact, it seems like everytime there is a republican in office (Nixon, Reagan, Bush senior and junior) Europeans like to compare that administration to nazi germany. Democrats are more welcome. I won't question your intelligence since it's so blatant for all to see.

Quite frankly you may question anything you like, including my intelligence. I have no question about your morals, or lack thereof. Interesting you include Nixon in your lineup. I am sure it beyond your ability to understand why he is considered a scroundrel. Oh, I would wager you could mouth the words, but cannot understand them for what they mean. I have known low people in high places, and I would not sing their praises. You would, as long as it suits your ends. That is what makes neocons dangerous, but again, the understanding of that is as beyond you as the concept of beauty is to a machine. You are blind, and if your kind were not so dangerous, I would pity you for it.

WTF wouldn't I consider Nixon in that line-up? Last time I checked, he was a Republican and Europeans hated him.

Yes, why would you not put him there indeed. <Sigh>

 

[Moonbeam]

Dari, you remind me of a fanatic that's turned against his own country, for some imagined ego slight only to adopted a foreign American authoritarianism as a substitute father type out of primal fear. You sound like a reformed socialist, somebody who was out and now is in.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Dari, you remind me of a fanatic that's turned against his own country, for some imagined ego slight only to adopted a foreign American authoritarianism as a substitute father type out of primal fear. You sound like a reformed socialist, somebody who was out and now is in.

But.. Dr. Beam... that is a more Freudian view of the situation... I, as a Jungian must take issue with the salient part of your diagnosis.
You used the term "ego" which would indicate a Jungian approach however, the outward manifestation of the sub conscience pain of rejection in our subject can be best explained by recognition of motivator(S)... and fall clearly into the Jungian philosophy..

No single motivator can be relied upon to account for all behavior... there are multiple or archetypes that drive from within. In the example you note it is clear the subject is an Extrovert (drawing energy from) combined with the functional aspect of "thinking". The functions of "feeling", "sensation" and "intuition" are clearly not present, I would agree with your assessment of fewer rather than many motivators involved, which I infer. Perhaps we should do coffee when your schedule permits and compare notes. Thursday is out, however. I lecture at the first church on the left in Boise, Idaho on Thursdays.. Ta Ta for now..
Your Colleague ... Herr Dr. Do little.

****Disclaimer**** I have not a clue what I just wrote so don't take it to mean anything real or be slighted by it...

 

[Moonbeam]

Uhhh, were you under a rock when Bush was elected? I specifically remembered in the spring of 2000 when Colin Powell and Bush went on TV and outlined american foreign policy if they were elected. I thought this was a bold and audacious move, considering that they weren't guaranteed to win. But it made me confident that they would carry out what they announced that day. There's nothing better than the marriage of intelligence, confidence, and determination.
---------------------------------
And nobody has it in spades like the religious fanatic. You are a cultist, Dari. You ought to post the source of the stream from which you suck such bilge.
------------------

read my earlier post and you will see that I mentioned that americans will have to come to term that they have the world's most powerful military and economy. we are, in fact, an empire. the neo-cons just realize that and accept it. granted, we americans, having defeated the british to find our own country, don't like to see ourselves as an empire and will try to dissuade others from seeing us as such. but the reality is we are. besides, no smart potential politician would ever tell voters something they don't want to hear. only a politician in office can/should do that. if bush told the public that we would have to realign the world because it is a dangerous place, many would've been against such a policy.
---------------------------------
Ah yes again we see your fear. The world is a dangerous place. Only an Americanized world will make us safe. The reason a polititian would never say he's going to realign the world is because we don't elect the mentally ill.

 

[Moonbeam]

HJ: ****Disclaimer**** I have not a clue what I just wrote so don't take it to mean anything real or be slighted by it...
---------------------------
Not to worry HJ. I took it as a prime example of, "There's nothing better than the marriage of intelligence, confidence, and determination."

 

[sMiLeYz]

I think Nazi is an overused term, neocons are more Machiavellian than any other idelogy. Reading Strauss is like reading "The Prince" to the nineth power. This a rebirth of Machivallianism, combined with the worse aspects of conservatism to create an ideology whos scarily reminscent of that of an Orwellian government.

Dari, you're romantacizing an dangerous ideology that is very unamerican in it's nature.

Oh yeah... how the hell did you figure McCain and Lieberman to be Neocons?

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh yeah... how the hell did you figure McCain and Lieberman to be Neocons?
----------------------------------
They are as far as I'm concerned. It particularly sickens me when they are held up as some form of opposition. They've got one finger in the wind and another up their ass.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh yeah... how the hell did you figure McCain and Lieberman to be Neocons?
----------------------------------
They are as far as I'm concerned. It particularly sickens me when they are held up as some form of opposition. They've got one finger in the wind and another up their ass.

I agree with you on Lieberman. What's your issue with McCain? I don't agree with him on everything, but I always saw him as thoughtful and a little more principled than your average politician.

 

[Moonbeam]

Support for war in Iraq among other things.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Support for war in Iraq among other things.

Yeah, there is that. He reminds of Colin Powell -- intelligent and principled, but willing to put both aside when forced to support the team. I wonder what McCain thought about Iraq before Bush-lite and his minions made it a litmus test for patriotism.