MarkMiller

Why would you start a forum for conservatives yet not add a forum for liberals or "Progressives"?

Heretic

Think if it as similar to a wildlife preserve surrounded by the exact opposite.

__________________
"In space no one can hear you scream. in D.C. it won't matter..." -Clinton Resurrection: The Alien Queen lives!

EvilMonkey

Because it's pretty obvious that nearly every member of this board is liberal, this gives an obvious place for conservatives to hang if they want.

voodoo

I'm a little confused about the diff between lib and con anyway. Perhaps it is a sign of the times?

Attacking other countries is not conservative.
Massive debt is not conservative.
Assaults on civil liberties is not conservative.
Vast expansion of gov (via privatization - ie fascism) is not conservative.

"The conservatives" who you've invited over hold such views as ...

"They hate us for our freedom"
"They are Iraqis so they must be the enemy"
"We need to take out Iran before they nuke us and take over the world and rape our women folk"

See, I don't see these things as conservative - I see them as radical. Neocon - maybe but even then they've bailed on the core conservative principles (which I share) - particularly fiscal conservatism.

Small gov good. Good gov better. Bad gov dangerous.

__________________
It's the truth, stupid.

VKMHVM2

The only difference between Neocons and Neolibs is Neocons believe in unilateral war and Neolibs want every war to be sanctioned by the UN.

__________________
It's All Here!

Dr. Albert Pastore: An Independent Investigation of 9-11 and the War on Terrorism

"Missing Links" - the 911 film THEY do NOT want you to see!

VKMHVM2

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 10, 2003


Neo – CONNED !



More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

They express no opposition to the welfare state.

They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.

It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...3/cr071003.htm

__________________
It's All Here!

Dr. Albert Pastore: An Independent Investigation of 9-11 and the War on Terrorism

"Missing Links" - the 911 film THEY do NOT want you to see!

Circus

For the same reason BET exists.

MarkMiller

No...what is does is give them special treatment. Fine, separate but equal right? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

If this board is liberal why treat the conservatives so special. Liberals are not even allowed in the conservative forums. It's one thing to let them register and post, but to single them out with their own board space begs people to go there to attack. I really don't think it fosters good will.....but what do I know.....as a liberal I am not welcome on any conservative sites. I don't mind their being here and would even like to debate with them...but this is like kicking libs in the nuts and looks like the site is taking sides.

EvilMonkey

Can I quote you from an earlier post http://www.politicalgroove.com/showp...&postcount=105

Since there are so many liberals on here, it doesn't need it's own place. What is needed is an obvious place for the conservatives to gather and feel welcome since there are so few. Adding a "Liberals" forum we be redundant with this crowd.

MarkMiller

As my quote states, liberals are kept out of conservative sites. While we can't get into there sites they are treated special on liberal sites. This is my opinion, and I thank you for allowing it without loosing you temper.

Also don't forget many people here are moderates as well. So, please forgive me if I feel a little shoved aside by the forum. I know I am not gaining any respect from this post, but it's always nice to be able to vent. So thanks for that.

At least we'll know where to find them!