quote:

Originally posted by erdega Neocons jumping ship ? Excuse me but that happened before , all the neocons used to be liberals in their early years , just search for some of the (in)famous names and what they did in their youth . Then they claimed to be (neo)conservative even though there is little to nothing conservative about them . They compensated for that with a totalitarian attitude to american foreign policy based on a huge army that would be used as a tool for their ethnic, economic and overly liberal ideology So some of them do jump ship out of necessity and neocons never announce their true motives in public so they shouldn't be trusted on their mere words, maybe they call themselves in the future neo progressive or some other fancy name, it matters little, what matters is their ideology and their ultimate accountability. I am not surprised that Bush supports Clinton, I am sure he likes her more than Ron Paul, there is a hell of a lot of neocons in the democratic party such as clinton, lieberman, lantos, biden and dozens more and all seem to be holding high positions

I really don't know what you're on about - neo-conservative is a movement that sprung out of Reaganite conservativism, not liberalism. There is a clearly defined ideology, and none of the people you listed above adhere to it - ESPECIALLY Biden or Lantos.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/s...fprinciples.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=glance&s=books

http://www.newamericancentury.org/troops-20050713.htm

___________________

Many people seem to be under that impression but neocons are basically liberals with guns not literally but figurativelly if you know what I mean. Or put it simply neocons are ex trotskyist in their political ideology, all of them being liberals early on

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
or see here in person
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
and more
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html
something about christopher hitchens when he was admirig saddam hussein
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j082602.html
http://anglonoelnatter.blogspot.com...tes-saddam.html

Since you talk about Reagan, let's just say that by far closest to him is Ron Paul and since Ron stands are completelly opposed to neocons, you should not compare Reagan with neocons
here is a good youtube clip
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg

quote:

Originally posted by erdega Many people seem to be under that impression but neocons are basically liberals with guns not literally but figurativelly if you know what I mean. Or put it simply neocons are ex trotskyist in their political ideology, all of them being liberals early on http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html or see here in person http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html and more http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html something about christopher hitchens when he was admirig saddam hussein http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j082602.html http://anglonoelnatter.blogspot.com...tes-saddam.html

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the roots of neo-conservatism. The "liberals" who broke to form the neo-conservative movement were disenchanted by liberalism, not adherents to it.

From the first article you posted:

quote:

The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world. Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

As for the second article you posted, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kagan, Kristol, Bolten and the like are indeed the true neo-conservatives, and it is undeniable that they are declining in influence and respect. Furthermore, none of them are, or ever have been, liberals.

As far as Christopher Hitchens is concerned, he's just a nutjob that nobody really takes seriously. He doesn't have any ties to Joe Biden or the other liberals you tried to paint with a neo-con brush.

quote:

Since you talk about Reagan, let's just say that by far closest to him is Ron Paul and since Ron stands are completelly opposed to neocons, you should not compare Reagan with neocons here is a good youtube clip http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg

This just prompts a huge

Ronald Reagan provided over the largest expansion of federal government since FDR! He was hardly isolationist, or for that matter non-interventionist, invading Grenada, getting involved in shady deals with Iran and Nicaragua, and drastically increasing American military expenditures at a time when they were already the highest in the world. Of all the comparisons I have ever read, this one is the most insane.

From the article that you linked to me in the first place, once again:

quote:

By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world. Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

If you need another clue as to how the neo-cons were birthed by Ronald Reagan, just count the number of times Rudy Giuliani mentions Reagan's name at the next Republican debate.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the roots of neo-conservatism. The "liberals" who broke to form the neo-conservative movement were disenchanted by liberalism, not adherents to it.

They broke because they were more militant and imperialistic not because they were suddenly anti liberal or conservative. That's just their hypocrisy just like Fox which is labeled "conservative" but is in fact the most tabloidish network on the air

I am not defending Reagan or putting him as example , I know very little about his time and frankly very little of it relates to today. That said , all the founding neocons were initialy liberals aka trotskyist and I guess they first came to power and prominence during Reagan years. That said if he was such a militarist I can see why neocons want to use him for their own ends .

History may write that this generation of neocons came to power during Bush years but they came earlier during Clinton years especially when we remember that it was these neocons that encouraged Clinton to bomb both Serbia and Iraq or making that infamous "iraq liberation act". We can say that today's neocons are not tied to a single party but to a rather simple ideal of american military imperialism and zionist nationalism through liberal policies and controlled mainstream media.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov As for the second article you posted, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kagan, Kristol, Bolten and the like are indeed the true neo-conservatives, and it is undeniable that they are declining in influence and respect. Furthermore, none of them are, or ever have been, liberals.

I believe those guys are just laying low for awhile as they are closely related to Iraq . But take for example Norman Podhoretz who is now the main consultant of Giuliani
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

Considered one of neoconservatism's founding fathers, Mr. Podhoretz studies, writes, and speaks on social, cultural, and international matters. From 1990 to 1995, he worked as editor-in-chief of Commentary magazine, a neoconservative journal published by the American Jewish Committee. Podhoretz advocated liberal political views earlier in life, but broke ranks in the early 1970s. He became part of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority founded in 1973 by Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson and other intervention-oriented Democrats

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov As far as Christopher Hitchens is concerned, he's just a nutjob that nobody really takes seriously. He doesn't have any ties to Joe Biden or the other liberals you tried to paint with a neo-con brush.

Hitchens may be a lot of an eccentric nut but he is well represented and someone here posted his article the other day. As for Biden and Chuck Schumer, Tom Lantos, Gary Ackerman,Rahm Emanuel, Joe Lieberman, Diane Feinstein and all the other democrat zionist hawks , well there is really no difference between them and the neocons when it comes to foreign policy. It's basically 2 sides of the same coin

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov This just prompts a huge Ronald Reagan provided over the largest expansion of federal government since FDR! He was hardly isolationist, or for that matter non-interventionist, invading Grenada, getting involved in shady deals with Iran and Nicaragua, and drastically increasing American military expenditures at a time when they were already the highest in the world. Of all the comparisons I have ever read, this one is the most insane.

Like I said , I don't know what's good about Reagan and I don't how exactly he relates to today, well they want a huge military all right, but everyone was talking about him so I had something to chime in.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov From the article that you linked to me in the first place, once again: If you need another clue as to how the neo-cons were birthed by Ronald Reagan, just count the number of times Rudy Giuliani mentions Reagan's name at the next Republican debate.

Yeah right and Bush made today's neocons, actually they were very active during Clinton's years as I mentioned and I expect a good number of them to jump to Hillary side

I will agree with you that the Blue Dog Dems (Feinstein, Emanuel, Schumer, and the like) leave a lot to be desired, but I wouldn't compare them to the neo-cons. They aren't talking about using American military influence to thrust democracy upon other countries despite the consequences to security and human rights. They're just spineless and afraid to get in a dogfight.

And I'd be a little bit more nuanced about incorporating Zionism into the neo-conservative agenda. A lot has been made of the current Middle East peace talk rounds and how it's the first time that the US hasn't opened them by criticizing Palestine. I'm not saying that the US isn't more or less pro-Israel, but I don't know if the connection is as clear as you're making it seem.

You and I share a deep-seated worry about Hillary... but I don't think we share the same view that Bill's administration was corrupted by the neo-con agenda. If anything, the neo-conservative revival of 1996/1997 was a product of how much they despised Clinton and wanted a reversion to the Reagan years. Reagan may not have considered himself a neo-conservative, persay (he was much more wont to give himself the neo-liberal misnomer), but he has been christened something of a godfather of the intellectual neo-conservative movement - Podhoretz, Kagan, and Kristol all alude to Reagan on a regular basis and pine for the years where we "had the courage" to stand up militarily to "the evil empire" - which they now see manifest in political Islam.

And to clear Biden's name - he may be a bit soft on Israel, but he is no neo-con, or a hawk for that matter. He's leading the Senate charge for a new political strategy in Iraq that takes the focus of military.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov *sigh* Latin, Please read at least the first post in this thread before you respond. Thanks.

Seriously...

Can we sponsor a PDD fund to put Latinloser (TM by Opus) and erdega into a cage fight to the death? (For the record, it's not because I love Hillary, quite the opposite)

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov *sigh* Latin, Please read at least the first post in this thread before you respond. Thanks.

Reading what others write has never quite been our statistics instructor's strong point, so don't expect him to start anytime soon.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Reading what others write has never quite been our statistics instructor's strong point, so don't expect him to start anytime soon.

Dont forget that I also teach history You really should come down to Miami and take one of my courses. So for the first time you can learn something Youll be very lucky if you get me as your professor

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton College tuition should be free, so should healthcare.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Dont forget that I also teach history You really should come down to Miami and take one of my courses. So for the first time you can learn something Youll be very lucky if you get me as your professor

Gosh, how could I have forgotten that?

Well there's certainly one thing I haven't forgotten, the question that you seem to continually dodge - one that would most certainly be easy as pie for a statistics instructor to give out on a dime:

quote:

what is the best test to determine the differences between more than 1 independ. variable but with no repeated measures? IOW, to determine the impact of more than 1 independ. variable on a depend. variable?

Also, can you name the school and a few staff members in your department where you teach?

Thanks.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Dont forget that I also teach history You really should come down to Miami and take one of my courses. So for the first time you can learn something Youll be very lucky if you get me as your professor

I'm ready to learn from any prof who has a walking weed plant as his avvy! LOL!

And this topic intrigues me but there are way too many articles to read here!

All I got was:

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Obama has been playing up his cultural sensibilities towards Islam

GO OBAMA!!!

Statistics professor eh? Well perhaps you could explain to us how you would take the second central moment of a Gaussian distribution.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

Last edited by Zild on Nov-23-2007 at 18:26