No, sorry. I was replying to the opening post, really.

Skadi, better watch that avatar, you might have PETA after you..

Anyway, bush isn't overly intelligent and neither was his opponet(kerry). just hope we get some better choices next time. BTW if its between hillary and cheney(God forbid) we will have to settle for the lesser evil, which IMO is probably, um.....um.....oh man this is hard!

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
But its never to late so long as even those who once supported him, with the belief that he would implement better change and relations, if they can begin to question, then all hope aint lost.

Because thankfully, the constitution has a little built in security device for dealing with failed presidents and corrupted politicans: impeachment. Bush has barely begun his his second term, the option is still there for us should it get worse.

I sure hope people will wake up, but unfortunately, I think they're really just that dumb. I'd like to think the Bush supporters might be able to see what he and his regime are doing to America, but they're still so easily brainwashed by the media. Most of the people who support Bush have never spent 10 minutes trying to find out if he's done anything wrong. Rather, they just make excuses for the supposed incompetence. IMO there has been so much incompetence, I have a very hard time believing it's not just a cover for a much more underhanded strategy. I think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Wolfowitz, etc. have taken politics to new heights of foul play. They've breached the realm of fair play so blatantly, that most people really can't accept that there's anything that horrible going on. Quite honestly, I've been waiting and watching the gov gradually take more and more power all my life. I knew this was going to happen, eventually. Now, we don't even have elections anymore, really. The politicians are so good at denial, disinformation campaigns, and carrying on charades, that half the country still believes they haven't lost their part in government selection and control. Poor, silly fools.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by Moe Foe]

Bush isn't a conservative at all, he's (a monkey who's trained to be) a neo-conservative. The differences are extreme. To all conservatives out there, I recommend a book called "America Alone" published by Cambridge University Press. It's a critique of the neo-conservative movement, but, unlike most such books, it's written by two conservatives (of the scholarly type, I should add, not the Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter type.)

EDIT: link messed the thread up, so I removed it.

I'm not posting it as an endorsement, just so you can read the amazon reviews to see if it sounds like something you'd want to read. You can probably find it at your local library.

The essential difference is that neoconservatism has more in common with a special interest group than a political movement. Their interests are very specific, namely:

1.) Their belief in moral absolutes, and the nessecity of confrontation as a measurement of political character (contrast with Reagan's careful method of alliance building and deterrence as a method of conflict prevention.)

2.) The belief that military power is the primary factor determining relations between nations.

and 3.) A focus on the middle-east, with the support of Israel and the opposition to fundamentalist Islam taking priority over all other foreign and most domestic policy concerns.

Think of them as a lobbying group for the above principles, rather than examples of the natural process of evolution for the political philosophies of conservatism.

-koji K.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by koji_K]

Originally posted by koji_K
Bush isn't a conservative at all, he's (a monkey who's trained to be) a neo-conservative. The differences are extreme.
nip>
The essential difference is that neoconservatism has more in common with a special interest group than a political movement. Their interests are very specific, namely:

Good summary, koji K.

I'd like to add one interesting historical tidbit for conspiracy buffs to chew on:
An amazing number of the leading "neo-conservative" writers are former Marxists, mostly of the Trotskyite persuasion.

David Horowitz springs immediately to mind as an example, but there are quite a few others.

It seems that they haven't strayed far from their old beliefs, especially in your points # 1 & #2.

As students of the defunct USSR will recall, Trotsky was the leader of the Red Army during the Russian Civil War following the Bolshevik coup [AKA "October Revolution.] Until he was squeezed out of the CPSU & the Comintern by Stalin, he was leading the call to use the Red Army to expand the Revolution to the rest of Europe, and then the world.

Now we have the Neocons, who have the "Red-White-&-Blue" Army to spread their reign of terror.

Any other thoughts on this parallel?

BTW, this is "on topic" in the sense that we are clarifying the intellectual roots of Neo-Conservativism as opposed to the intellectual roots of traditional Conservativism.

I mean, no one who is conservative in the true sense of the term makes revolutionary crusades a number one foreign policy objective. Or so it has heretofor been, methinks.

_javascript:icon('') _javascript:icon('')
_javascript:icon('')

//ed to shorten quote//

[edit on 25-5-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Dear all,

I have an honest question for all Americans.

Do you feel that George W. Bush is the best person to lead and represent your country?

I am not asking is he better than Kerry or Clinton etc. I am asking is he the best of the over a quarter of a billion of you?

Cheers

BHR

he's the best in representing the party he leads and the majority of the people who voted him. even if he doesnt not agree each and everyone of us on each issue.

//ed to remove quote of the entire preceding reply//

[edit on 2-6-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Delta,

So you honestly think that off all the people in America he is the best leader and best representative of your nation?

Really????

Cheers

BHR

no i dont dink he is the best in the all of America's leaders since the first elected president. but he is the best available at this time. either Kerry or Bush i chose Bush. and so did others.

//ed to remove quote of the entire preceding reply//

[edit on 2-6-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Delta,

You are not getting the question I am asking.

I am asking if you think that of all those eligible to be President of the US at this time, he is the best choice.

I am not asking if you think he is the best President of all time, I am not asking if you think in the limited choice between Kerry and Bush, he is the best (but this does show up how limited American politics is).

Please read more carefully what I have posted here before you answer.

If you cannot manage that then please do not bother to answer at all.

Cheers

BHR

then my answer is no he is not the choice to represent the American people. there are many other choices i could pick for but to your question is no.

Delta,

Thanks for your honesty.

Sometimes I actually think that many of your countrymen actually feel that the answer to my question is yes and that scares me.

Cheers

BHR

I'm concerned that he's trying to spread freedom around the world yet here at home, he's diminishing our civil libertires, he's making the country afraid, and doing unamericn things in the name of fighting terrorism.

Putting up camera's? Proposing that Real ID... You don't fight terrorism by making the government bigger and having big brother spy on the people.

Take a hint from israel they've been fighting them for years...

They are going to start regulating us more and more, and congress isn't working for the people like they should be, and that's scary.

[edit on 24-7-2005 by TrueLies]