I thought Conservatives were hawks and Liberals were doves?
Well, not anymore.
It began during the Ron Paul campaign. All of a sudden, the so called Liberal (along with Conservatives) began to attack his anti-war position
calling him an "isolationist" because he thought it made more sense to talk to and trade with other nations as opposed to waging constant war.
But now its official, the "Liberal" media is just as hawkish as the so called "Conservative" news outlets, especially when it comes to the Middle
East, wonder why...
Only person on this panel, Hillary Mann Leverett, dared to speak out against the establishment. So much so that even the host began to attack
The other disturbing aspect about this group is that these pro-war neocons from the Left are comprised of an executive editor and a senior
correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast...
The idea of unbiased "reporting" or "journalism" is a complete joke.
I think it would be helpful for people to be aware of what a neocon really is.
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about them:
Neoconservatism was the most influential and distinctive social trend to emerge in the 1970s,
drawing its leaders from former leftists and liberal Democrats disillusioned with the political changes and popular democracy of the 1960s.
Neoconservatives, called by wits "liberals mugged by reality," railed against radicalism disguised as liberalism and defended elitism. Unlike
earlier conservative Republican leaders, such as Sen. Barry M. Goldwater and President Richard M. Nixon, the most prominent neoconservatives tended to
be prolific intellectual writers, such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, ... Irving Kristol, .... Jeanne Kirkpatrick,....
This has more to do with political tribalism than any matter of principal. Journalists tend to be liberals and support Obama, therefore, they will
follow him down the rabbit hole on Syria or at least not push too terribly hard.
Everyone wants to be a slave, we just want to choose our master.
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
It's not a synonym for a Republican.......
No, but it does comprise the majority of the modern Republican party representatives in DC. It is a liberalized, marginalized Republican...
Bottom line here is that, once you strip away the arguments which never seem to result in much of anything anyway (abortion, gun control, welfare
reform, accessability to American oil), there's very little difference between the average Democrat and average Republican "leader" in DC. The
differences exist to give the people the artificial belief of choice when, in reality, neither party is worth a tinker's damn... just like Obama,
Boehner, Cantor, Ried, Pelosi, my God I could continue this list all day...
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2015, The Above Network, LLC.