• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is traditional "true" conservatism extinct?

poncho

Well-Known Member
Neoconservatives care about one thing—war (and where they can wage it). Says contributing editor to the Weekly Standard, neocon Max Boot: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad,” a progressive, Wilsonian vision, if there ever was one. As for traditional conservative concerns like limited government, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional fidelity, these are ideas neoconservatives will occasionally pay lip service to, so long as none of these principles interferes with their more important task of global military domination. It is no coincidence that George W. Bush—the first full-blown neoconservative presidential administration—did not limit government, was not fiscally responsible, and shredded the Constitution, while still implementing the most radical foreign policy in American history. Writes conservative columnist George Will, “The most magnificently misnamed neoconservatives are the most radical people in this town.”

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/tactv/neoconned-no-more/

Is traditional "true" conservatism extinct?
 

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Me thinks ...

Neoconservatives care about one thing—war (and where they can wage it). Says contributing editor to the Weekly Standard, neocon Max Boot: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad,” a progressive, Wilsonian vision, if there ever was one. As for traditional conservative concerns like limited government, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional fidelity, these are ideas neoconservatives will occasionally pay lip service to, so long as none of these principles interferes with their more important task of global military domination. It is no coincidence that George W. Bush—the first full-blown neoconservative presidential administration—did not limit government, was not fiscally responsible, and shredded the Constitution, while still implementing the most radical foreign policy in American history. Writes conservative columnist George Will, “The most magnificently misnamed neoconservatives are the most radical people in this town.”

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/tactv/neoconned-no-more/

Is traditional "true" conservatism extinct?

... politics of the past are all but gone! What we have are a melting pot of people claiming to be conservative or liberal, BUT, the differences between these groups is no longer in what they believe . It is in name only. Which is why they are divided; they hate to admit they are on the same page now.

As a kid, and young adult there were actually noticeable ways one approached an issue vs the other. Today there are hardly distinguishable, and that is scary, at least for me.

The political differences between my dad, a die hard democrat and myself were clear. Not so any longer which is why I am now an independent. I can now vote for a democrat because their views are a little closer to what I believe on things.

The truth is the two party system has practically merged. I can no longer tell the difference from one to another and now I vote for who I think may do best for the country. I can hardly tell the difference between liberal and conservative. Example: both are doing nothing to fix the border. Neither is troubled by the lack of military might. They just care about their careers and being re elected, and few have values, morals or interest in their personal or political integrity. :tear:
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
One of the many serious flaws of neoconservatism is its excessive confidence in American power. This routinely leads its adherents into advocating aggressive policies without taking into account the possible and likely consequences of those policies, because they overlook or simply ignore how their policies might go wrong. That’s not unique to neoconservatives, but it is more perilous because they are constantly agitating for U.S. activism abroad. If there is a foreign crisis or conflict, neoconservatives will insist that the U.S. can and must “lead” to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, and they deride anything other than their preferred policy as vacillation and “weakness.” Neoconservatives also routinely overestimate the importance of willpower and resolve, and they imagine that many international problems could be successfully resolved with nothing more than the right application of resolve and an exercise of power.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-no-one-should-still-be-a-neocon/
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
Conservatives are not anti-semitic but the American Conservative magazine is!

Why because it questions Israel's policies? :rolleyes:

Another fallacy that reveals the close link between neocons and liberals. Accusing someone of being anti Semitic for questioning Israel's policies is no different than accusing someone of being racist for questioning Obama's policies.

Who is Robert Spencer?

ROBERT SPENCER is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of thirteen books, including two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (both Regnery). Recent books he has written include Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins (ISI) and Not Peace But A Sword: The Great Chasm Between Christianity and Islam (Catholic Answers). His latest book is Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In (Regnery).

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/the-american-conservative-embraces-the-islamic-supremacist-agenda

Spencer is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Horowitz‘s Freedom Foundation. Birds of a feather flock together.

http://www.loonwatch.com/?s=ROBERT+SPENCER&submit=Search
 
Last edited by a moderator:

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Why because it questions Israel's policies? :rolleyes:

Another fallacy that reveals the close link between neocons and liberals. Accusing someone of being anti Semitic for questioning Israel's policies is no different than accusing someone of being racist for questioning Obama's policies.

No, Pat Buchanan has always skated on the edge of being anti-Semitic and his magazine has gone over the edge and adopted an Islamist viewpoint--read the link above before you delve into your false analogies.
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
No, Pat Buchanan has always skated on the edge of being anti-Semitic and his magazine has gone over the edge and adopted an Islamist viewpoint--read the link above before you delve into your false analogies.

I read the link, then I looked up the author and his buddies. Like Pamela Gellar.

They're all over the top Islamophobes and purveyors of paranoid propaganda. Little wonder you find them credible. They speak your language. Fallacies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

poncho

Well-Known Member
While there is little that is new in the attached article by Philip Giraldi; it is nevertheless very important and well worth reading. Giraldi has produced an excellent summary of the truly poisonous influences on US foreign and defense policies, a group more accurately described by the collective modifier neo-conmen.

He describes how the influence of this movement’s current incarnation got its start inside the Scoop Jackson (aka the Senator from Boeing) mafia during the 1970s, how it grew and infiltrated establishment of Versailles on the Potomac in the 80s and 90s, and then metastasized into a truly destructive menace after 9-11, which to the neo-conmen, became a kind of manna from heaven. The trauma unleashed by that attack enabled them to cynically fan the fires of blind fear and convert a horrendous crime into an act of war. I was in the Pentagon between 1973 and 2003 and first became aware of their growing influence in 1977 or 1978, although I erroneously discounted them at the time as being nutty. But, by 1983 or so, my discounting began to disappear. From my mind’s eye, Giraldi’s retrospective is spot on,

Think about it: The neoconmen’s poison has been one of the (and in some cases “the,”) central causes of (1) the mistaken war in Iraq, (2) the failed war in Afghanistan, (3) the rise of a state of perpetual war that is morphing into an endless, as yet unacknowledged, and increasingly unfocused war against tribal Islam in the Middle East and Africa, (4) the hijacking of US foreign policy by our client state of Israel, (5) the never-ending crisis with Iran, (6) the continued addiction to high and economically counterproductive defense budgets, the growth of which are more tuned to the obsessions of the Cold War than the wars the neo-conmen started, (7) the reduction of civil liberties at home, and most importantly, (8) a web of growing grand-strategic mismatches among the (a) values America professes to uphold (what we say we are), (b) the actual values revealed to world by America’s actions (what we really are) and (c) the growing constraints of the world America has to deal with. This arrogant hypocrisy implicit in this grand-strategic web is becoming increasingly obnoxious to people living in the rest of the world.

Left uncorrected, this behaviour is a prescription for isolation. There can be no good end to the 21st Century grand-strategic pathway launched by the people described by Giraldi below. In saner times their destructive actions would have placed the neo-conmen in the dock of public opinion, if not the law.

Chuck Spinney

Read More At: http://www.phibetaiota.net/2013/05/chuck-spinney-philip-giraldi-the-poisonous-treasonous-influence-of-the-neo-cons-why-isnt-the-fbi-going-after-them/
 
Top