Neo-Cons Spend Billions on Brainwashing Propaganda Direct at the Poor in Benefit to the Wealthy!

reply to post by CantSay

Did you even read the article?? The article defines it nicely.

What article? The one you linked to in the OP does not even mention "neo-cons"

To rational people, it's war mongering to meet larger agendas and war generates money for private military contractors and manufacturers at the expense of human lives and peace!!

That hardly sounds like a rational statement. It seems to me by "rational people" you mean people who are easily influenced by emotionally charged rhetoric.

Further more read the evolution of neo-cons ending in the Bush Doctrine

Wait, what?

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by CantSay

 

Did you even read the article?? The article defines it nicely.

What article? The one you linked to in the OP does not even mention "neo-cons"

To rational people, it's war mongering to meet larger agendas and war generates money for private military contractors and manufacturers at the expense of human lives and peace!!

That hardly sounds like a rational statement. It seems to me by "rational people" you mean people who are easily influenced by emotionally charged rhetoric.

Further more read the evolution of neo-cons ending in the Bush Doctrine

Wait, what?

You asked for a definition I posted one with article link:

Here's a more accurate description:
ipsnews.net...

Simply neo-cons are war mongers and democracy gets in the way so they circumvent it as needed to meet domestic and international power and control agendas. They highly believe in military intervention like in Iraq (in search of non-existing WMDs...oil) and now Iran.

By rational, I mean people who favor peaceful diplomacy and not war! If you favor war, that's not rational because war benefits absolutely no one but a few. Posturing is one thing on foreign policy, but signing declaration of war is completely another. War with Iran...seriously?? The thousands of innocent people that will die for what? So som fat cats make more money to add to their immense wealth?

My "rhetoric" is charged because of "the 88 million people not working" propaganda lie!

reply to post by CantSay

By rational, I mean people who favor peaceful diplomacy and not war!

Oh.... now I get it. By rational you mean people that think like you, now it all makes sense.

If you favor war, that's not rational because war benefits absolutely no one but a few.

Oh yeah, who is anyone to tell Hitler to stop marching on Poland and killing jews, how IRRATIONAL- we should have just written a strongly worded letter and told the jews to grow up and stop complaining.
When America wanted its independence we should have just asked and if the king of enland said no, we should have been thankful.
When the south seceded we should have just said good luck and enjoy your slaves.

reply to post by CantSay


Uhhh there is no "international" definition........

that is THE definition of the word man.........

Once again, you cant make up your own facts, and USING ALL CAPS , doesnt make it factual either.....


Its clear your point here is not to be objective...

You actually TRY and refute definitions of words because they dont fit your slanted and/or antagonizing view of things........

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by CantSay

 

By rational, I mean people who favor peaceful diplomacy and not war!

Oh.... now I get it. By rational you mean people that think like you, now it all makes sense.

If you favor war, that's not rational because war benefits absolutely no one but a few.

Oh yeah, who is anyone to tell Hitler to stop marching on Poland and killing jews, how IRRATIONAL- we should have just written a strongly worded letter and told the jews to grow up and stop complaining.
When America wanted its independence we should have just asked and if the king of enland said no, we should have been thankful.
When the south seceded we should have just said good luck and enjoy your slaves.

Wow you guys are dense!

Lets clarify some things.

1st: The definition of the neo-con to the international community in contemporary description is that of US imperialism by means of war and manipulation of capitalism and politics.They support Israeli war mongering...a nation that holds a double standard by not allowing UN inspections but expects it on others (no I am definitely not anti-semite...just anti-war). Neo-cons are interventionist...by means of military and foreign policy in regards to economy and central banking model.

"Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present). The term "neocon", while increasingly popular in recent years, is somewhat controversial and is rejected by many to whom the label is applied, who claim it lacks a coherent definition"

"The neo-conservatives have taken the traditional conservative platform of small government, fiscal responsibility, isolationism, and social conservatism and reworked it extensively.

The neo-con philosophy differs from the traditional conservative most significantly in international policy. Instead of isolationism, their platform is more focused on a "strong America" world presence, including the doctrine of unilateral action (see PNAC). Because of the international scope, the small government concept seems to be greatly deprecated.They seem to have replaced fiscal responsibility with preferential funding for the military/industrial complex (Haliburton, Homeland Security, military), while still cutting (or privatising) domestic spending and social programs. The social conservatism is as strong as ever, but now edges toward the religious right and a greater interference by government in individual lives. Much of the neo-con ideal of how to provide a social safety net is to funnel money toward private "faith-based" charities. "

askville.amazon.com...

2nd: The Bush Doctrine, the result of neo-conservative ideology, states that preventative war is necessary even during peace time. Preventative war is illegal by the United Nations. War to stop war is stupid if the evidence doesn't support it, and potential enemy doesn't have the means to start or sustain war against a much more powerful foe like Iran vs. US.

en.wikipedia.org...

Preventative war is illegal if there is no evidence that the war being prevented would ever happen and if the UN doesn't support it. Take Iran for example. They haven't started any war in over 100 years. The Iraq-Iran war was was started by the Iraq. The US on the other hand has been involved in almost all major conflicts in the world over the last 100 years. So the possibility that Iran will start a war is very very slim compared to the US. Don't believe me, do your own research.

I'm in favor of the US/UN flying over suppressed dictatorships releasing pamphlets discussing the merits of a free and democratic society in order to educate and get the ball rolling on opening the eyes of suppressed people to overthrow their suppressive governments at their moment of choice. BUT I am not in favor of massive military action killing indiscriminately in removing governments before the people are educated. This leaves these countries susceptible to enslavement by another countries (US - Halliburton) through economic means like was done in Haiti and Iraq and many other countries (for oil, gold and other riches). You want to liberate people, educate them and then let them decide. Don't decide for them because that's as bad as stealing.

Some people talk about WWIII and how they wish it will happen (shills I believe), but what they don't realize is that the world has been in the largest military operations over the last 20 years in the Middle East and domestically against civil liberties. To me this is a form of WWIII, but why and who's ultimately benefiting?? That's the real question. The military-industrial-complex...Halliburton and oil companies...many, if not all, Republican conservatively controlled companies.

AGAIN, DON'T TAKE ANYTHING ANYONE SAYS AT FACE VALUE! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND CHECK THE FACTS YOURSELF! ASK WHY YOU THINK THE WAY YOU DO AND WHO INFLUENCED YOU TO THINK THIS WAY! THINK OF THE LARGER PICTURE. ASK YOURSELF WHO ULTIMATELY BENEFITS BY HAVING YOU AND MILLIONS OF OTHERS THINKING THE WAY YOU DO? TRY TO SEE OTHER PERSPECTIVES. OPEN YOUR EYES!

Of course none of my argument matters if you don't care about human life, if you lack ethics or if you're selfish and greedy. I am anti-war and pro-education.

Obama, with all his faults, is the best hope your country has to actually help the American people...

...go further into debt.

But it was well-written, so I guess you get points for that. But it's still a load of bs.

/TOA

Originally posted by CantSay
Of course none of my argument matters if you don't care about human life, if you lack ethics or if you're selfish and greedy.

I found this interesting

www.nizkor.org...
Description of False Dilemma

A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
Claim Y is false.
Therefore claim X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:

Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
It is not the case that 1+1=4.
Therefore 1+1=12.

In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:

Bill is dead or he is alive.
Bill is not dead.
Therefore Bill is alive.

Examples of False Dilemma

Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."
Senator Bill: "Why?"
Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit."

Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"

"Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while."

Originally posted by The Old American

Obama, with all his faults, is the best hope your country has to actually help the American people...

...go further into debt.

But it was well-written, so I guess you get points for that. But it's still a load of bs.

/TOA

And the alternative is...the best of which two evils? (considering my 3 pages of arguments)

Originally posted by DavidWillts

...umm what!??

Re-posting for posterity:

Lets clarify some things.

1st: The definition of the neo-con to the international community in contemporary description is that of US imperialism by means of war and manipulation of capitalism and politics.They support Israeli war mongering...a nation that holds a double standard by not allowing UN inspections but expects it on others (no I am definitely not anti-semite...just anti-war). Neo-cons are interventionist...by means of military and foreign policy in regards to economy and central banking model.

"Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present). The term "neocon", while increasingly popular in recent years, is somewhat controversial and is rejected by many to whom the label is applied, who claim it lacks a coherent definition"

"The neo-conservatives have taken the traditional conservative platform of small government, fiscal responsibility, isolationism, and social conservatism and reworked it extensively.

The neo-con philosophy differs from the traditional conservative most significantly in international policy. Instead of isolationism, their platform is more focused on a "strong America" world presence, including the doctrine of unilateral action (see PNAC). Because of the international scope, the small government concept seems to be greatly deprecated.They seem to have replaced fiscal responsibility with preferential funding for the military/industrial complex (Haliburton, Homeland Security, military), while still cutting (or privatising) domestic spending and social programs. The social conservatism is as strong as ever, but now edges toward the religious right and a greater interference by government in individual lives. Much of the neo-con ideal of how to provide a social safety net is to funnel money toward private "faith-based" charities. "

askville.amazon.com...

2nd: The Bush Doctrine, the result of neo-conservative ideology, states that preventative war is necessary even during peace time. Preventative war is illegal by the United Nations. War to stop war is stupid if the evidence doesn't support it, and potential enemy doesn't have the means to start or sustain war against a much more powerful foe like Iran vs. US.

en.wikipedia.org...

Preventative war is illegal if there is no evidence that the war being prevented would ever happen and if the UN doesn't support it. Take Iran for example. They haven't started any war in over 100 years. The Iraq-Iran war was was started by the Iraq. The US on the other hand has been involved in almost all major conflicts in the world over the last 100 years. So the possibility that Iran will start a war is very very slim compared to the US. Don't believe me, do your own research.

I'm in favor of the US/UN flying over suppressed dictatorships releasing pamphlets discussing the merits of a free and democratic society in order to educate and get the ball rolling on opening the eyes of suppressed people to overthrow their suppressive governments at their moment of choice. BUT I am not in favor of massive military action killing indiscriminately in removing governments before the people are educated. This leaves these countries susceptible to enslavement by another countries (US - Halliburton) through economic means like was done in Haiti and Iraq and many other countries (for oil, gold and other riches). You want to liberate people, educate them and then let them decide. Don't decide for them because that's as bad as stealing.

Some people talk about WWIII and how they wish it will happen (shills I believe), but what they don't realize is that the world has been in the largest military operations over the last 20 years in the Middle East and domestically against civil liberties. To me this is a form of WWIII, but why and who's ultimately benefiting?? That's the real question. The military-industrial-complex...Halliburton and oil companies...many, if not all, Republican conservatively controlled companies.

AGAIN, DON'T TAKE ANYTHING ANYONE SAYS AT FACE VALUE! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND CHECK THE FACTS YOURSELF! ASK WHY YOU THINK THE WAY YOU DO AND WHO INFLUENCED YOU TO THINK THIS WAY! THINK OF THE LARGER PICTURE. ASK YOURSELF WHO ULTIMATELY BENEFITS BY HAVING YOU AND MILLIONS OF OTHERS THINKING THE WAY YOU DO? TRY TO SEE OTHER PERSPECTIVES. OPEN YOUR EYES!