Question for Win Hill

[John Larkin]

What, they turn neocon to get revenge on reality by flipping over to perp?

Sounds logical to me.

Cheers!
Rich

OK, consider this perspective:

NeoCons have, philosophically, a sincere desire to make the world a
better place for everyone, both materially and spiritually. But they
reject the classic "liberal" methods as counter-productive and
soul-wrenching, so propose other methods.

The liberals of course see this as a severe threat... humane goals -
their alleged turf - but more effective methods; so they must label
the neocons as toadies of Halliburton and such. And besides, their
ancient emphasis on material well-being and "the means of production"
is economically obsolete and has zero spiritual content, so that makes
them even more threatened. In the US at least, liberals are
increasingly atheistic, childless, coastal, wealthy yuppies, and the
real working class of the US is turning increasingly into neo-cons, as
the last election suggests.

Discussion? Or insults, whatever.

I gotta go serve the champagne and red beans.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

[snip]

OK, consider this perspective:

NeoCons have, philosophically, a sincere desire to make the world a
better place for everyone, both materially and spiritually. But they
reject the classic "liberal" methods as counter-productive and
soul-wrenching, so propose other methods.

The liberals of course see this as a severe threat... humane goals -
their alleged turf - but more effective methods; so they must label
the neocons as toadies of Halliburton and such. And besides, their
ancient emphasis on material well-being and "the means of production"
is economically obsolete and has zero spiritual content, so that makes
them even more threatened. In the US at least, liberals are
increasingly atheistic, childless, coastal, wealthy yuppies, and the
real working class of the US is turning increasingly into neo-cons, as
the last election suggests.

Discussion? Or insults, whatever.

I gotta go serve the champagne and red beans.

John

Champagne and red beans? For what, gas on both ends ?

...Jim Thompson

 

[Winfield Hill]

John Larkin wrote...

NeoCons have, philosophically, a sincere desire to make the world
a better place for everyone, both materially and spiritually.
Granted.

But they reject the classic "liberal" methods as counter-productive
and soul-wrenching, so propose other methods.

I see it differently: like most other ultra-religious types they fail
to truly understand the victims of their attention, and convinced of
their own perfection, they simply don't hear any other voices. Or to
pay any serious attention anyway.

The liberals of course see this as a severe threat... humane goals -
their alleged turf - but more effective methods; so they ...

Sorry, but I have to reject your "severe threat" characterization, it
simply doesn't fit. But excuse me? The NeoCons have more effective
methods? You're referring to their classic unfettered chance to do it
their way, in Iraq? What a setup John, that's a more effective method?
Sheesh, I expected a better argument from you.

 

[John Larkin]

[snip]

OK, consider this perspective:

NeoCons have, philosophically, a sincere desire to make the world a
better place for everyone, both materially and spiritually. But they
reject the classic "liberal" methods as counter-productive and
soul-wrenching, so propose other methods.

The liberals of course see this as a severe threat... humane goals -
their alleged turf - but more effective methods; so they must label
the neocons as toadies of Halliburton and such. And besides, their
ancient emphasis on material well-being and "the means of production"
is economically obsolete and has zero spiritual content, so that makes
them even more threatened. In the US at least, liberals are
increasingly atheistic, childless, coastal, wealthy yuppies, and the
real working class of the US is turning increasingly into neo-cons, as
the last election suggests.

Discussion? Or insults, whatever.

I gotta go serve the champagne and red beans.

John

Champagne and red beans? For what, gas on both ends ?

...Jim Thompson

If you soak the beans overnight and then pour off the water, it
removes most of the sugars that cause the anti-personnell effects.

John

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liberal]

OK, consider this perspective:

NeoCons have, philosophically, a sincere desire to make the world a
better place for everyone, both materially and spiritually.

Yeah, in their infinite arrogance, they claim to know what's "better" for
everybody, regardless of whether or not it's true.

Make your own life better, but let others muddle through the best they can
- that's called "live and let live", or sometimes, "respect."

Help them if they ask, but otherwise, mind your own damned business.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

John Larkin wrote...

I see it differently: like most other ultra-religious types they fail
to truly understand the victims of their attention, and convinced of
their own perfection, they simply don't hear any other voices. Or to
pay any serious attention anyway.


Sorry, but I have to reject your "severe threat" characterization, it
simply doesn't fit. But excuse me? The NeoCons have more effective
methods? You're referring to their classic unfettered chance to do it
their way, in Iraq? What a setup John, that's a more effective method?
Sheesh, I expected a better argument from you.

It wasn't an argument, it was a perspective, and no short perspective
can be entirely right. But it looks to me that the Democrats are the
ones you described above, who "fail to truly understand the victims".
The serious Dems I know are complaining now about how "stupid" are the
residents of flyover territory, how they didn't have the sense to vote
"in their own interests". They don't understand that these
contemptable suburban stereotypes, these working stiffs with wives and
kids and SUVs and soccer games and PTA, these stupid dupes living out
in the boring subdivisions, are real people with real feelings.

(Damned good champagne.)

It's astonishing how often the ordinary working class is far ahead of
the social philosophers who purport to know what's best for them. The
philosophers get pissed off when the dumb rabble won't heed their sage
advice and do as they're told. Tom Wolfe wrote some great stuff along
these lines.

And I don't think that being socially conservative means that a person
is necessarily religious, much less ultra. The correlation is a
philosophical one, an alignment of interests. But many Dems seem to
have as great a contempt for religion as they do for conservativism,
and that just cost them the Presidency. The essence of religion is, or
is supposed to be, humility.

Iraq is an attempt to plant democracy in the Arab world; probably a
clumsy attempt, likely a doomed attempt, but a sincere one I think. I
didn't claim that the neocons have any sort of supernatural skill in
predicting the social outcome of their actions; nobody's any good at
that.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

I see it differently: like most other ultra-religious types they fail
to truly understand the victims of their attention, and convinced of
their own perfection, they simply don't hear any other voices. Or to
pay any serious attention anyway.

Yes, you describe a PERFECT example of the American left as typified by
the Boxer/H.Dean and less so John Kerry wing of the Democrat party.
The western leftists in general (western nations) have apparently
developed their own religion and religious fervor that is essentially
devoid of reason and rationality. I am NOT claiming the right/center
GOP as being perfect, but is relatively more rational, very much like
the John Kennedy wing of the Democrat party of the 1960s. The GOP has
a problem that is based upon lack of leadership experience and not
effectively growing into leadership expertise from their previous
opposition situation.

On the other hand, with their irrational behavior, the ruling
part of the Democrat party (leftists) are haven't admitted to the
Democrats loss of control, and haven't competently adapted to their
opposition party status. This loss of power by the Dems really does
appear to have caused them to go totally nuts.

The GOPers are not really adapting well to leadership, while the
Dems are going nuts with frustration that their religion isn't being
adopted by everyone else.

John

 

[John Larkin]

Sheesh, I expected a better argument from you.

So, insults it is.

John

 

[keith]

Yeah, in their infinite arrogance, they claim to know what's "better" for
everybody, regardless of whether or not it's true.

Rather than assume the rest of humanity is a child and needs constant
supervision, yes. Helping them on the the way to a better future is
not *racist*. I don't assume they cannot "handle it". Your kind
does, constantly.

Make your own life better, but let others muddle through the best they
can - that's called "live and let live", or sometimes, "respect."

You may muddle through your life, but others aspire to better things. For
you to say they cannot aspire to what *I* have, because they're damned
Arabs who have no history of democratic institutions is simply *racist*.
You're pretending that somehow you are better than they. Why, because
they're a little browner than you? ...or is it because you're a lazy ****
who has amounted to nothing? Hell you whine about not giving to the
tsunami victims, yet are too fucking *cheap* to send 'em a ham sandwitch!

Help them if they ask, but otherwise, mind your own damned business.

Oh, they have asked. I hope your kind never get near the steering wheel
again, because they will end up gassed again.

Good Luck!

You're the one who needs luck Rich. The rest of us rely on work. If you
allow the boot of Saddam off their necks, you'll likely be whining about
off-shoring your job to Iraq soon. I can see why you're worried.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liberal]

Rather than assume the rest of humanity is a child and needs constant
supervision, yes. Helping them on the the way to a better future is
not *racist*. I don't assume they cannot "handle it". Your kind
does, constantly.


You may muddle through your life, but others aspire to better things. For
you to say they cannot aspire to what *I* have,

I'm saying no such thing!

You've taken my words and turned them completely backwards!

They can have whatever they want, they can aspire all they want!

Who the hell do think you are to think that they want to have your
lifestyle or religion or politics or culture or anything else of yours
shoved down their throat at the point of a gun?

Dumb Fucker.
Rich

 

[keith]

I'm saying no such thing!

Oh, but you do! ...constantly. You constantly tell people how they
should spend their money, but whine that you have none to give of your
own.

You've taken my words and turned them completely backwards!

Nope. You're a liberal wannabe loser. You say it with every breath.

They can have whatever they want, they can aspire all they want!

....an you want to tax what they "don't deserve", and limit what they do.
You're almost as bad as RSW.

Who the hell do think you are to think that they want to have your
lifestyle or religion or politics or culture or anything else of yours
shoved down their throat at the point of a gun?

I don't give a crap about anyone's religion (that's a leftist's hangup).
Who says "they" don't want to be free to choose "their" own way. For you
to say that "they" aren't capable of "freedom" as I have it is simply
*racist*. You are racist scum.

Dumb Fucker.

You need that mirror again. It is *you* who doesn't want people to be
free.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liberal]

Oh, but you do! ...constantly. You constantly tell people how they
should spend their money, but whine that you have none to give of your
own.

Show me one instance of me telling any person how he or she "should" spend
his or her money.

Or just shut up anyway, since you obviously have no interest in
intelligent discourse, but merely rant based on your own personal
fantasies.

Good Luck!
Rich