Author Topic Options



PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:19 pm
 


A terrorist is someone not in uniform who kills innocent people for political or religious reasons. The meaning of liberal hasn't changed, except they're calling themselves progressives these days to fool folks.





PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:21 pm
 


The Patriot Act is nowhere near as draconian as the measures now proposed by the Labour Party but I don't see any handwringing being done over that. Is it because it is a party of the left?





PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:23 pm
 


So now they're going to be eaten? That's just plain ridiculous. One expects a higher level of discourse on this website.





PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:38 pm
 


Of course not. Just pointing out that weight gain is not necessaily an indicator of good living (as when caged) or even good food.


Offline

Forum Junkie

Profile
Posts: 582
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:21 pm
 


Of course not. Not since the neocons stole the term and you are not educated enough to realize it. Same happened with Canadian conservatism - Harpie is no conservative - certainly not like Dief (Who must be spinning in his grave) but an other lousy neocon. One other thing. I am far from being a conservative myself. But I do respect them even though they often have social ideas that make my hair stand on end. At least they have principles, which is more than I can say about the Chimp and his gang.





PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:39 pm
 


In the gulags people were starved and worked to death, so I think you should come up with a different name. How about prison? That says what you really mean.


Offline

Newbie

Profile
Posts: 10
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:21 pm
 


A terrorist is someone not in uniform who kills innocent people for political or religious reasons

then what do you call someone in uniform who kills innocent people for political or religious reasons, because I really don't see any difference between the two





PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:11 am
 


Unfortunately, as is true with most labels 'neocon' is applied somewhat indiscriminately.

For the purposes of Vive, I believe it's generally used to describe the denizens of half-baked U.S. sites who, with their sub-par peers, like to style themselves conservative and generally spend their time preening one another's simplistic, backwards beliefs; cheering on wars where those other than themselves die and trolling about the web bothering others with foolishness they've copied from whatever nonsensical site supports their ill-informed beliefs, e.g., evolution is a hoax, etc.

Hope that answers your question.





PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:25 am
 


A neocon is someone who sees things for what they are rather than through a pre-concieved ideological bias about how they think things should be.

Neocons have a better understanding of human nature than the ideologically biased, this gives neocons much better insight as to how politics can be used to advance human rights and equality of all people.

Because neocons are so much more open-minded than average people, the ideologues, especially socialist ones, tend to get jealous of neocons - that's understandable because it takes a lot of self-righteous justifications to try and uphold a clapped-out old system of socialist abuses and so it hurts when the obvious failings are pointed out.


Offline

Vive Moderator


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5450
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:33 am
 


Specifically, a 'neocon' is a 'New Conservative' patterned in the school of thought of Professor Eli Strauss, IIRC of Harvard.

Prof. Strauss believed that for America to further it's goals of 'world peace' (through pacification, economic maipulation and installing US friendly puppet governments) that the people needed to be led by strong leaders with a purpose. That purpose may need to be manufactured.

Prof Strauss felt the religion or back in the 70's that the Soviet Union could be used as the catalyzing agent for the American people. The current Ford Administration, with Donald Runsfeld at the helm, managed to create evidence that the Soviet Union was breaking the START treaties, and focusing attention on the Soviets as the evil that wanted to destroy the 'American way of Life'. When the Soviet Union collapsed under it's own weight, the US Administration under Regan convinced the people that they had caused the collpse by their efforts in Afghanistan, and the policy of "US: World Police" was born.

Now the enemy is 'Terrorists', but the neocon has the same agenda, and most of the same faces as in the 70's. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz . . .


---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill



Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? - Frank Zappa


Offline

Forum Junkie

Profile
Posts: 643
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:00 am
 


Do we have a Labour Party? Did I wake up in Britain this morning?

---
"Yeah, well, [Mr. President] we used all five fingers because that's the way our mittens are made." Antonia Zerbisias





PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:26 am
 


"Prof Strauss felt the religion or back in the 70's that the Soviet Union could be used as the catalyzing agent for the American people."
I'm not sure what this sentence means and reading the rest of the posting by "Dr. Caleb," I'm not surprised. He is either a mystic drawing on inner sources denied the rest of us or he just processes information in novel ways that result in the flowering of conspiracy. "Managed to create evidence" that the Russians were violating the START treaty is another example of his peculiar thinking. As they like to say on this website, where's your evidence of this? Oh, and the bit about the Soviet Union could be used as the catalyzing agent for the American people. Didn't get that, either. How is it that Dr. Caleb alone is perceptive enough to see through what are evidentally very deep schemes to trick the American people into following the designs of an obscure Harvard professor and his latter-day Skull and Bones disciples.





PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:28 am
 


I realize Canadians are self absorbed by their own small affairs, but you do occasionally learn of news from the outside world?





PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:30 am
 


I call that an army.


Offline

Vive Moderator


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5450
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 11:46 am
 


My mistake, it Leo Strauss of Cambridge, not Eli of Harvard. <br />
<br />
"Prof Strauss felt the religion or back in the 70's that the Soviet Union could be used as the catalyzing agent for the American people." <br />
<br />
Read his works, then you're allowed to have an opinion. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss</a> <br />
<br />
<br />
It's what people get when they do their homework. Informed. As opposed to just watching Fox. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism</a>_(United_States) <br />
<br />
<br />
"Managed to create evidence" <br />
<br />
Search for "Committee on the Present Danger" and "Group B" which was a think tank started by Donald Rumsfeld in the 70's to analize the 'Soviet Threat', that determined the Soviets were building up weapons that could not be detected by the CIA, because the CIA could not detect them. Therefore the Soviets must be building up. <br />
<br />
"Oh, and the bit about the Soviet Union could be used as the catalyzing agent for the American people." <br />
<br />
By making up these imaginary weapons (that the CIA told President Ford did not exist) the Soviets became a threat. Under President Regan, intellegence built up a threat that the Soviets were sponsoring world wide terrorism, by citing many different sources all ofer the world. The CIA told Regan that all the sources were from CIA propaganda campaigns, that the CIA had manufactured these sources, but Regan still took the Soviet threat as real. <br />
<br />
Feel free to look this stuff up, and draw your own conclusions. <br />
<p>---<br>"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill <br />



Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? - Frank Zappa


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests



cron
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Vive Le Canada.ca. Powered by © phpBB.