NeoCon Hypocrits

When my hero Clinton was in office for 8 years, life was bliss. No wars, strong economy, endless bliss. For me anyway. I endured all the stupid Billary jokes, and all the no balls jokes. I knew we were living in a time of peace and prosperity under Clinton so I didnt care what anyone said. Another reason I did not engage in debates on the merits of Bill Clinton is the only put downs that NeoCon could come up with were about infidelity. They couldnt say a damn thing about his job, because he was good at it.

Clinton exemplified the perfect President, well, minus Monica. But He was still one of the best presidents we have ever had. All that could be said about him is he was not a good husband. So this is what was said. I didnt argue this as it was true. He was not a good husband, but he was a GREAT president.

Now that Bush is in office, things have changed on the debate front. Bush is obviously not the calibre of president that Clinton was, the nation being split down the middle is evidence of this. Clinton had a much larger election percentage BOTH times than Bush. A larger percentage of American voters thought Clinton was a better choice for president than Bush. But when a Liberal has a problem with Bush doing his job (Not his home life) we are chastised for even entertaining the thought. We are not allowed to hold a different opinion than Bush, otherwise we get hacked and tackled by Bush supporters. This is VERY evident here on ATS. There is even a MOD that is guilty of this, but I wont mention any names.

It seems that the days of freedom of choice and expression are being wittled away by the NeoCons in an attempt to subvert an entire nation into believing exactly what they believe. This country was founded on MANY opinions and MANY different people. Neocons have forgotten this. They think we should be made out of a mold so we are all alike in thoughts and actions, and those thoughts and actions are the same as thiers.

So why is this? Is there a major sence of insecurity about thier way of life? Is there some deep rooted ideal that every one MUST conform to the NeoCon agenda? All I want is the same acceptance I afforded the Neocons when My president was in office. You had nothing to complaine about but his home life, and you even got the chance to impeach him for it. Now that Bush is not doing his job (A much more important aspect of the presidents life than his home life), every one who doesnt support Bush would like to be able to do the same thing to Bush that was done to Clinton but when it is suggested that Bush be held accountable for his actions, Neocons start throwing temper tantrums like 3 year olds.

If it was good enough for Clinton, then why isnt it good enough for Bush?

Well actually, we bombed Iraq, invaded Bosnia, and got U.S. soldiers killed for no reason in Somlia under Clinton's watch. U.S. embassies were bombed and the World Trade Center was bombed under Clinton's watch. Not exactly "bliss."

The country wasn't divided under Clinton? In the 1996 election here's the popular vote:
Clinton 47,402,357 49%
Dole 39,198,755 41%
from: www.infoplease.com...
Maybe a larger margin, but still fairly divided.
What about the results of House elections in 1996? The House of Representatives gives us a fairly good view of the population:
Republicans: 228
Democrats: 206
from: en.wikipedia.org...
Hmmmmm....seemed like it was kinda divided back then.....

I don't particularly care for George W. Bush, but you should exhibit some objectivity and intellectual honesty in your posts. If your post was out of ignorance, simply try to do some research next time before you post. Thanks.

Believe me, my post was NOT out of ignorance. Nothing I stated was false. I did not say that there was NO division. I DID say that Clinton had a larger percent of the voting population vote in his favor. All things you confirmed. Thanks

But you never addressed the questions posed.


Edited for:
As for the conflicts, They occour with every president. I did NOT say conflicts. I said WAR. Big difference.





[edit on 2/21/05 by Kidfinger]

So you don't classify the conflict in Bosnia as a war? Attacking another country to oust a regime is not war?

Also, I feel no need to address the questions you raised because I am not a neoconservative.

[edit on 2/21/2005 by XX_SicSemperTyrannis_XX]

Originally posted by XX_SicSemperTyrannis_XX
So you don't classify the conflict in Bosnia as a war? Attacking another country to oust a regime is not war?

No I do not. It was a police action. Better look up your terms of engagement.

Also, I feel no need to address the questions you raised because I am not a neoconservative.

If all you wanted to do was attempt to portray me as an ignorant partisan then you really shouldnt have bothered to reply. I asked some honest questions without injecting fallicy and I was hoping for honest answers. This has been up for a few hours now and since there are no other replies other than ones attempting to discredit the post, I would have to assume that there is no honest answer when it comes to Bush and his supporters.





[edit on 2/21/05 by Kidfinger]

Vietnam was classified as police action as well.......

Originally posted by Kidfinger

So why is this? Is there a major sence of insecurity about thier way of life? Is there some deep rooted ideal that every one MUST conform to the NeoCon agenda?
If it was good enough for Clinton, then why isnt it good enough for Bush?

As far as I can tell these are the only questions you asked in your post. THey are questions that refer to a baseless accusation concerning the neocons. Why would anyone be interested in responding to such questions? To respond is only to dignify that tripe with an answer. If you really want answers then ask honest questions, not ones that assume sweeping generalities without a single example with which to substantiatel them.

In reality your post sounds more like the sour grapes of someone who's team is not currently winning than an honest invitation to discussion.

Originally posted by Johannmon

As far as I can tell these are the only questions you asked in your post. THey are questions that refer to a baseless accusation concerning the neocons. Why would anyone be interested in responding to such questions? To respond is only to dignify that tripe with an answer. If you really want answers then ask honest questions, not ones that assume sweeping generalities without a single example with which to substantiatel them.

There is nothing biased about my questions. They would have made more sence to you had you understood the post. Read this part agian.

It seems that the days of freedom of choice and expression are being wittled away by the NeoCons in an attempt to subvert an entire nation into believing exactly what they believe. This country was founded on MANY opinions and MANY different people. Neocons have forgotten this. They think we should be made out of a mold so we are all alike in thoughts and actions, and those thoughts and actions are the same as thiers.

Then reffer to the questions posed about this at the bottom of the post.

There was nothing bassless about my post either. everything I said is true. If it wasnt, I would have had 50 people reply showing me the err of my ways. ITs all true, weather you want to accept it or not. Bush has some kind of untouchability to him. He has stated the neither he NOR any member of his administration will be held accountable for mistakes in the wars he is fighting. NO ACCOUNTABILTIY!!!!! Is that baseless? No. Clinton got a BJ and was impeached for it because Neocons finally had a reason to go after him. Bush has done a crappy job as president and things are getting worse. Why cant he be held accountable? I guess he figures that since he is the closest thing to God on earth, he should be treated with unwavering blind trust. Neocons got to impeach Clinton for a BJ. Liberals want to impeach Bush for being a terrible president but we cant hold him accountable for his actions. Neocons could hold Clinton accountable, but Liberals cant hold Bush accountable for the mess this country is in? What kind of two faced double standard is this that Bush is adhering to?

If this didnt clear it up for you J, then I dont know what else I can say............



Oh, and as for Vietnam, yes it was a police action. Whats your point? Remember what happened to the president at the time?

[edit on 2/22/05 by Kidfinger]

neo-con = brownshirt Republican

There is a certain degree of intolerance within neo-conservatism. Just listen to Sean Hannity's radio talk show. Suprisingly, Hannity is actually somewhat nice to liberals that call in. However, if a conservative criticizes Bush, it's as if blasphemy has been committed or something. The cause of such a reaction? It is because neo-cons fear true conservatives (and libertarians for that matter). They know that true conservatives and libertarians will expose the neo-cons for what they truly are: a sham.

Originally posted by XX_SicSemperTyrannis_XX
neo-con = brownshirt Republican

There is a certain degree of intolerance within neo-conservatism. Just listen to Sean Hannity's radio talk show. Suprisingly, Hannity is actually somewhat nice to liberals that call in. However, if a conservative criticizes Bush, it's as if blasphemy has been committed or something. The cause of such a reaction? It is because neo-cons fear true conservatives (and libertarians for that matter). They know that true conservatives and libertarians will expose the neo-cons for what they truly are: a sham.

EXACTLY! The Neocons are actually former extreme Liberals that were run out of the democratic party for thier extreme views. I love it when intelligence rears its beautiful head

Sorry for implying that you are ignorant. I actually agreed with the second have of your original post. I just like to try to poke holes in people's arguments, but you are right. I've said it many times elsewhere on these boards. George W. Bush actually has more in common with Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, etc....

Originally posted by XX_SicSemperTyrannis_XX
I've said it many times elsewhere on these boards. George W. Bush actually has more in common with Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, etc....

No probs T. I appreciate the apology

You are quite correct in your analogy of Bush to the other presidents. These guys are where the Neocon movement began with. If people were to compare the past poloicies of these presidents to Bush, there would be striking similarities.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
There is nothing biased about my questions. They would have made more sence to you had you understood the post. Read this part agian.

It seems that the days of freedom of choice and expression are being wittled away by the NeoCons in an attempt to subvert an entire nation into believing exactly what they believe. This country was founded on MANY opinions and MANY different people. Neocons have forgotten this. They think we should be made out of a mold so we are all alike in thoughts and actions, and those thoughts and actions are the same as thiers.

That is the very unsubstantiated statement I am referring to. It is a fact that neo-cons have a political agenda. It is a fact that they want to further that agenda. It is pure bologna to say that neo-cons want to force everyone to think like they do. Your statement could be made, albeit erroniously,
about any political movement. If you cannot provide substantiation for your assertion then you may want to reconsider the validity of your perspective. It is obvious that you revile the current administration and that is ok but for you own sake you should examine your beliefs in light of your bias so as to come to a more rational conclusion.

He has stated the neither he NOR any member of his administration will be held accountable for mistakes in the wars he is fighting.

Do you have a reference for such a statement or is this just another thing that is true whether I want to accept it or not?

I guess he figures that since he is the closest thing to God on earth, he should be treated with unwavering blind trust.

MOre assumptions and unsubstantiated statements.

Neocons got to impeach Clinton for a BJ.

This is historically incorrect. Bill Clinton was impeached not for sexual activity but for lying under oath also known as perjury.

Neocons could hold Clinton accountable, but Liberals cant hold Bush accountable for the mess this country is in? What kind of two faced double standard is this that Bush is adhering to?

There is a big difference between impeaching a sitting president for a criminal action and trying to impeach based on job performance. One is cut and dried, the other quite subjective. Had Clinton told the truth when questioned under oath about his activities there would not have been an impeachment. There is no double standard here just the same old politics that have been going on for decades. You can be a Bush hater if you want to be but at least recognize the color that your perspective casts upon your opinions. In other words you are welcome to your opinions but you should not claim them as facts since facts remains so even when viewed from another perspective.

The statements you have made when viewed from a neutral perspective no longer carry the weight of fact. In fact they more closely resemble Michael Moore type fiction that fact.

If people were to compare the past poloicies of these presidents to Bush, there would be striking similarities.

FDR, LBJ, HT, If GWB accomplishes half as much as these great presidents we will be a much better nation for it.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Johannmon]

Originally posted by Johannmon


That is the very unsubstantiated statement I am referring to. It is a fact that neo-cons have a political agenda.

First off, could you please stop with the childish name calling and silly insinuations? Please?

Now, there was NOTHING unsubstantiated about this. I encounter it daily here on ATS. it is mostly from personal experience when I speak about this.

Do you have a reference for such a statement or is this just another thing that is true whether I want to accept it or not?

Do you really want me to provide you with proof? Are you telling me you have never heard,read,or saw in the news where Bush said this? Well, ok, here are some links.

www.washingtonpost.com...
www.commondreams.org...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.patridiots.com...
www.musicforamerica.org...

There are many more.

I guess he figures that since he is the closest thing to God on earth, he should be treated with unwavering blind trust.

MOre assumptions and unsubstantiated statements.

Um...That was presented as an opinion, not as fact.......

This is historically incorrect. Bill Clinton was impeached not for sexual activity but for lying under oath also known as perjury.

Nothing inacurate at all. What did he lie about? A BJ.........

There is a big difference between impeaching a sitting president for a criminal action and trying to impeach based on job performance.

Well, it is your opinion that Bush is not a criminal. It is my opinion that he is. It was not my opinion that Clinton was a criminal, yet he was still impeached. That is how cut and dry it really is.

The statements you have made when viewed from a neutral perspective no longer carry the weight of fact. In fact they more closely resemble Michael Moore type fiction that fact.

Please man. There is more than just your view in reality. I dont even like MM. I think he is a pig headed political vampire that makes money off political smut. There is no need for you to carry on and call names just because you dont agree with someone. You could attempt to portray your views as that. YOUR views. You could also attempt to accept that not every one sees things the same as you, and just because people see things differently, that doesnt automatically make them wrong.

FDR, LBJ, HT, If GWB accomplishes half as much as these great presidents we will be a much better nation for it.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Johannmon]

That remains to be seen.

Just wanted to say that after a long hard think on the name of this thread, it occoured to me that it might have been a tad harsh. I would go back and change it, but it has been to long. My apologies to anyone offended by it. It should have been named Liberal Frustrations or something along those lines. If a mod reads this and can change it, please feel free to do so.

Originally posted by XX_SicSemperTyrannis_XX
There is a certain degree of intolerance within neo-conservatism.

This is very true. It is one thing - as a Republican - I cannot abide. No room for disagreement in the new Gay Old Party. Stick to the talking points or you're gonna get kicked to the curb.

if a conservative criticizes Bush, it's as if blasphemy has been committed or something. The cause of such a reaction? It is because neo-cons fear true conservatives (and libertarians for that matter). They know that true conservatives and libertarians will expose the neo-cons for what they truly are: a sham.

Exactly. I've always considered myself a conservative Republican. I should probly ammend that to progressive, or Libertarian/Republican. I am of the same Paleo/Realist-school that Pat Buchanan, Charlie Reese and Brent Scowcroft are from. Or better known - TRUE conservatives.

Neo Cons, as I think Kidfinger pointed out, are actually old school LIBERALS who got ran out of the Democratic party for being warmongers. They are NOT conservative OR Republican. I would encourage my fellow ATSers who support this movement to look into its origins. If you're a real Republican (Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan), there is no way you could support this band of thugs. What is even worse about them is that they are not pushing policy for the sake of our country; they are doing the bidding of Israel's right-wing Likud party. I support Israel fully; but I do NOT support Sharon and the Likudniks. Their agenda is most dangerous for our nation.

Regarding Clinton.. Johannmon correctly pointed out that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath; not for getting serviced. The reason they went after Clinton for that was because they could not get him on the bigger, darker stuff. Had they gone for it, plenty of other people from the right side of the aisle would have gotten caught up in it. And that was not gonna happen.

Kidfinger (I can't remember if I've ever discussed this book with you before.. so apologies if I have) - read "Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA" by Terry Reed. It is a keeper; and reveals the true extent of George H. W. Bush and Clinton's working relationship going back to Iran Contra. Clinton was governor of Arkansas at the time. It's a hard read, especially if you're like me. At the time I read it, I was just learning more about ex-President Bush's many dark dealings & connections. Not easy for me to stomach, I must say. Poppy Bush was a president I admired and he was my commander-in-chief while I was in the Army. I always liked the old guy. (Tho I liked Reagan ALOT more.) Anyway, I read it, digested it, did the math and had to accept certain realities that did not match my illusions. That's the part of growing/learning that I don't care for. But, there are uncomfortable realities we all must face, if we want to deal in what's true.

Every president gets his hands dirty somehow, every president has to make calls that would stagger most of our minds. Those decisions benefit the many, while sacrificing the few. Every president has done something good. Some more than others. This is just the nature of the beast. I would venture a guess though, there has never been a more corrupt administration than this current one: which I did vote for the first time around. I'll say this one thing for Clinton (whom I DESPISED - sorry kid) at least he was man enuff to sit down with that grand jury, UNDER OATH and get linguistically creative all by his lonesome. Little Dubya had to go in with Tricky Dick Cheney holding his hand, NOT under oath. That speaks volumes.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid




Every president gets his hands dirty somehow, every president has to make calls that would stagger most of our minds. Those decisions benefit the many, while sacrificing the few. Every president has done something good. Some more than others. This is just the nature of the beast. I would venture a guess though, there has never been a more corrupt administration than this current one: which I did vote for the first time around. I'll say this one thing for Clinton (whom I DESPISED - sorry kid

) at least he was man enuff to sit down with that grand jury, UNDER OATH and get linguistically creative all by his lonesome. Little Dubya had to go in with Tricky Dick Cheney holding his hand, NOT under oath. That speaks volumes.

you earned it:

You have voted EastCoastKid for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

Awe shux, man. Yer awright.

Here's the thing I like about Kidfinger. He's an avowed liberal; I'm an avowed Republican (progressive whatever). We have great dialogue without going flame-O on each other. Think about it. We're all here for one reason (I would assume), and that is we all care about the issues. We should not have to go ballistic on each other b/c we happen to disagree. It's uselss AND childish.

You rock, KID - even if you might be me in disguise..

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Awe shux, man. Yer awright.

Here's the thing I like about Kidfinger. He's an avowed liberal; I'm an avowed Republican (progressive whatever). We have great dialogue without going flame-O on each other. Think about it. We're all here for one reason (I would assume), and that is we all care about the issues. We should not have to go ballistic on each other b/c we happen to disagree. It's uselss AND childish.

You rock, KID - even if you might be me in disguise..

Thanks ECK. Yeah, the dbl identity is whole 'nother story

I completly agree with what you say about people getting along here. I posted something about this on Board and Business Questions this morning.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Thanks ECK. Yeah, the dbl identity is whole 'nother story

YOu know I couldn't pass that up!