[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wow, orion you read that lengthy post? Hey thanks man![/quote]
Yes, and did you notice how I am instinctively drawn to the point I disagree with?
[/quote]
You have the best argument radar on the site. 
How are things in Austria this time of year?
[/quote]
Two weeks before Christmas?
Cold and commercialized.
[/quote]
Two things I never really liked. Oh well, just keep your head above the fray and march on.
This is entertaining
Anyways, back to the freaking thread topic. Here’s Abe Greenwald (guess at his religion) offering BHO as a continuation of the last neoconservative presidency:
[quote]Going Neocon
Is Obama getting mugged by reality?
By Abe Greenwald
During his Nobel Peace Prizeâ??acceptance speech today, Barack Obama said, â??For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world.â?? He cited the historical example of Adolf Hitler and the present-day example of al-Qaeda. This rounds out a year that has seen a succession of real-world object lessons that bear out the claims of the intellectual tendency known as neoconservatism: Iran has rejected a torrent of American obsequiousness and will not be charmed out of pursuing nuclear weapons; its population, meanwhile, is clamoring for a robust American defense of democracy; a far-left American president has determined that a significant surge of American troops is the only way to win a faltering war effort in a far-off Muslim land; that same president has acknowledged that â??weâ??ve achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraqâ?? and is using the basis of those achievements as the model for his new ramp-up strategy.
In these, three convictions often linked with neoconservative thought have been affirmed:
No matter how technologically advanced and interconnected the world becomes, there will be bad actors, and their obstinacy will remain intact. Every regime cannot be made to acquiesce through appeals to common humanity. Some can only be made pliant through threat and, if necessary, force.
Populations living under despotic leadership are at all times engaged in a desperate struggle for liberty. Moreover, these populations look to America, the worldâ??s longest-running constitutional democracy, for moral and material support. All the shallow resentment of the arrogant â??world policeâ?? evaporates when truncheons start coming down on the heads of dissidents. America needs to be there when support is requested.
A willingness to apply overwhelming and innovative military force remains critical to Americaâ??s wars â?? regardless of their asymmetric natures. Similarly, America cannot afford to abandon or wind down her military efforts as a response to solely temporal considerations. Short wars have to be won; long wars, more so.
While recent developments in global conflicts have authenticated these notions, there remains a fundamental tension between their logical policy implications and the foundational political bearing of Barack Obama. The president has not yet implemented a â??phase IIâ?? approach â?? that is, an effective sanctions regime â?? to motivate an intractable Iran; he has not offered unwavering support to Iranian democrats; he has not spoken plainly of victory in Afghanistan; he has purposefully created an air of confusion over his commitment there; and he has not embraced American success in Iraq.
Why not?
The answer is no less connected to neoconservatism than are the international realities that now give rise to the question. Irving Kristol (religion? - Ed) said, almost too memorably, â??A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.â?? With that definition in mind, an eminent national-security personage put this perfectly phrased query to me over the summer: â??Is Obama too arrogant to get mugged by reality?â??
An excellent question. What the president calls his â??philosophy of persistenceâ?? looks increasingly like the vice of conceit. The new White House imperiousness explains Obamaâ??s inability to offer full-throated praise for the Iraq War â?? an undertaking he staunchly opposed. It also explains his devotion to de-fanging Iran through the voodoo of his personal allure (and to his correspondent obtuseness on Iranâ??s democrats).
It does not explain his purposefully jumbled message of surge and recoil in Afghanistan. On the uncompromising reality of war, Obama has sought a particularly Obamaesque solution: compromise.
The president has been partially mugged. Reality has accosted him and shaken him down for concessions, but it is only a temporary arrangement. Obamaâ??s â??persistenceâ?? is, for the time being, intact. That explains the contradictions contained within his war speech.
However, by invoking evil in his peace speech, he has obligated himself to a more decisive course of action and perhaps a new moral seriousness. For there is a deeper neoconservative concern that serves as the foundation upon which the architecture of democracy promotion and hawkishness are built. This is the belief in good and evil, realityâ??s parting gift to the mugged. Sometimes thought of as a quaint and outdated proposal, the assertion that virtue and wickedness are real is at the heart of neoconservative support for American power in the world. The Taliban â?? which beheads innocents, chops off votersâ?? hands, and subjects women to lives of brutal servitude â?? is evil. So, too, are Iranâ??s mullahs, who sentence teenagers to hangings for the â??crimeâ?? of homosexuality. Defeating these parties is its own reward. As evil is now part of Barack Obamaâ??s war lexicon, he must make this point, and he must speak of victory. For once evil is invoked, compromise is off the table. Evil demands defeat.
[/quote]
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Y3ODE2OTQ0MjAxZTI4Y2UxYmQ1ZmFkOWRmMTQyZTY=
Point 1 is obvious, even to the most casual observer. Point 2 does not follow from 1, nor is it true. Point 3 is also false. America is not using “overwhelming force” even now, 9 years into our AfPak adventure, and we are not obligated to fight “long wars” or even “short wars” based on the flimsy reasoning of 2).
Neoconservatism, embodied in GWB and BHO and as explained by Greenwald, is a failed ideology that needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Well, no it doesn’t, but then no one ever said that. I know, I know, you’re pouting because a “20-something know-nothing” is calling you on your basic economics mistakes, but trying to put words in my mouth is not the way to go.
Waaaaaahhhh!!!
Well, when you call on Little Johnny, and ask him what 2+2 equals, and he says “Five,” do you pull out Principia Mathematica and take him through the formal proof that 2+2 = 4? Or do you just tell him, “No, that’s not right. It actually equals 4?” You claimed that 2+2 = 5, and I don’t want to pull out Principia Mathematica.
You’ve got nothing, so far.
OK.
Why? What if they’re voted down in spite of his efforts? If he tries to get them passed, why wouldn’t you just say, “That’s a good idea, he’s doing the right thing”? You said “He should do X,” he did X, and now you’re trying to get out of acknowledging it. Could it be because you actually don’t care what he does, you’re just a partisan hack who boos and hisses when his party tells him to?
Unfalsifiable claims are just that.
He had just as much executive experience as McCain.
Why? It’s a lot of hard work and you come out purty smart. His senate experience gives him practical experience in government. You’re just desperate for an excuse to not like him.
Whatever you say.
Compared to the last president, who couldn’t even give a good speech.
So you liked inexperienced McCain over inexperienced Obama?
Which has fuck-all to do being president.
It’s as good being in the Navy.
No, you didn’t. Sorry. Quit whining.
[quote]just ask those who have written about the great depression. Roosevelt tried it and failed. If it were not for WW II we would not have gotten out of the depression even as quickly as we did.
Way to go, shit-for-brains. Call me stupid and then make the dumbass mistake of not even realizing WWII WAS Keynesian spending.
When did this happen? You haven’t mentioned a single fact yet.
I don’t know. Ask them. But then again, that’s not really what we’re talking about. See if you can spot your mistake.
Not really in general, but in this case, Americans HAVE supported universal health care for at least 20 years.
You don’t even know what single-payer is, do you?
I’ve given you many, many factual retorts. They don’t faze you. You simply won’t accept that you get basic facts wrong. Government-run success stories? Off the top of my head, how about the atom bomb? Since we were talking about it, how about the most rapid industrialization in history (Soviet Russia and Japan)? You don’t want to hear it, but single-payer health systems in other countries.
Ah, trying to dodge the question. I agree, it was your best move in this case, but it’s not going to work. I’m not asking you why unemployment is bad. The question is: what SHOULD have been done that would have been better? Before you answer, bear in mind: in your answer, the government can’t spend any money, because you’re against that, and you claim it doesn’t work. So what exactly are you faulting Obama for not doing? Have fun with this one.
Um, no, wrong again. It was actually the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that said that.
Are you schizophrenic or something? No you didn’t. You just said “Nuh uh! It doesn’t work!” You never gave any reason or facts. Just like usual.
You must have misunderstood: I’m not going there to get a degree I can use in your parallel universe. I’m staying here in the real world.
Again, shithead, that’s what you don’t get. The deficit grows regardless.
Maybe after the republicans sweep Congress and make labotomies mandatory, so that no one will question their policies, but if that doesn’t happen, then I’d best against my coming around to your opinions.
See, that’s why I think you’re really two different people who compose different parts of your posts without talking to each other. That’s fine, but then what are you complaining the jobless rate for? If that’s how you feel, then it’s not the government’s job to do anything. That’s why you’re so upset: I’ve exposed you for the braindead partisan zombie you are, who criticizes Obama for what he does, and what he does not do. For acting, and for not acting.
I’m sorry I don’t buy into the whole right-wing mythology that you require in order to keep yourself from committing suicide due to chronic cognitive dissonance.
Oh yeah, self-deception for sure. But not on my end.
No, it’s actually because I have my own eyes and my own brain. But thanks for playing.
But I don’t have to. Why respond to your made-up statistics with real ones? Why not let you continue to hang yourself?
But it doesn’t matter.
My advice is to keep chanting that to yourself, like a mantra.
Yet if, in the admittedly wildly unlikely scenario that McCain had died, she would have been the president. Don’t pretend it’s unreasonable.
No, I just enjoy pointing out how you voted for a guy with no more experience than the man you’re complaining about.
I agree.
Oh, OK! That’s good enough for me! I’ll just put this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php
into the bin full of facts that I’m supposed to ignore so that you can be right.
Ah, politically correct, empirically correct, what’s the difference?
Why? According to you there’s nothing they should do about it. What would be the point?
I’m sorry, I’m just looking at the statistics on the rapid rise of health premiums, and concluding that reducing them could help the economy. I’m sorry, I’m using economics again. I know you don’t understand.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/july-dec09/healthcosts_09-15.html
Yeah, I’ll get right on that, as soon as I prove that God doesn’t exist.
Why? Because I advance views you don’t like with evidence you can’t disprove?
Listen, I am under no illusions about my importance, but that’s not the issue. You are getting very basic facts wrong. I know it makes you mad, but it’s not my fault, and not something that name-calling will help. You’ll accept it in time.
gasp I DO work! I guess that means I win the argument, or something.
What am I learning? Groupthink? Doublethink? How to efficiently discard unpalatable information?
Haha!
Oh, so I should just use “experience” to get a feel for the relative effectiveness of private insurance versus single-payer system? I should just live longer to form a coherent opinion on macroeconomic policy. In short, to arrive at your favorite conclusions, I should basically just shut off my brain? It’s funny how that’s usually necessary to understand your arguments.
Good idea, PR.
Little Ryan,
I already told you what you need junior. Actually graduate from college stop taking money from Mom and Dad, get a job and work for at least 5 years pay your taxes etc. Then when you’ve done all of this I’ll respect you enough to actually hold an adult conversation with you. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out your politically correct university answers are not just falling short, but are now tiresome. Run along now and go play commie by yourself. Do all those fun things that make you feel independent, important, different and adult like.
That Ryan P. McCarter is a real hoot, isn’t he!
Another neocon (David Brooks) making a similar case:
[quote] In 2002, Obama spoke against the Iraq war, but from the vantage point of a cold war liberal. He said he was not against war per se, just this one, and he was booed by the crowd. In 2007, he spoke about the way Niebuhr formed his thinking: â??I take away the compelling idea that thereâ??s serious evil in the world and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldnâ??t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction.â??
His speeches at West Point and Oslo this year are pitch-perfect explications of the liberal internationalist approach. Other Democrats talk tough in a secular way, but Obamaâ??s speeches were thoroughly theological. He talked about the â??core struggle of human natureâ?? between love and evil.[/quote]
How is this in any way different than what Bush believed?
Still Brooks’ understanding of Christian theology is typically Jewish. In Christianity, there is no human struggle between “good and evil,” - we know good and do evil without struggling against it.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Anyways, back to the freaking thread topic. Here’s Abe Greenwald (guess at his religion) offering BHO as a continuation of the last neoconservative presidency:
[quote]Going Neocon
Is Obama getting mugged by reality?
By Abe Greenwald
During his Nobel Peace Prize�?�¢??acceptance speech today, Barack Obama said, �?�¢??For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world.�?�¢?? He cited the historical example of Adolf Hitler and the present-day example of al-Qaeda. This rounds out a year that has seen a succession of real-world object lessons that bear out the claims of the intellectual tendency known as neoconservatism: Iran has rejected a torrent of American obsequiousness and will not be charmed out of pursuing nuclear weapons; its population, meanwhile, is clamoring for a robust American defense of democracy; a far-left American president has determined that a significant surge of American troops is the only way to win a faltering war effort in a far-off Muslim land; that same president has acknowledged that �?�¢??we�?�¢??ve achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq�?�¢?? and is using the basis of those achievements as the model for his new ramp-up strategy.
In these, three convictions often linked with neoconservative thought have been affirmed:
No matter how technologically advanced and interconnected the world becomes, there will be bad actors, and their obstinacy will remain intact. Every regime cannot be made to acquiesce through appeals to common humanity. Some can only be made pliant through threat and, if necessary, force.
Populations living under despotic leadership are at all times engaged in a desperate struggle for liberty. Moreover, these populations look to America, the world�?�¢??s longest-running constitutional democracy, for moral and material support. All the shallow resentment of the arrogant �?�¢??world police�?�¢?? evaporates when truncheons start coming down on the heads of dissidents. America needs to be there when support is requested.
A willingness to apply overwhelming and innovative military force remains critical to America�?�¢??s wars �?�¢?? regardless of their asymmetric natures. Similarly, America cannot afford to abandon or wind down her military efforts as a response to solely temporal considerations. Short wars have to be won; long wars, more so.
While recent developments in global conflicts have authenticated these notions, there remains a fundamental tension between their logical policy implications and the foundational political bearing of Barack Obama. The president has not yet implemented a �?�¢??phase II�?�¢?? approach �?�¢?? that is, an effective sanctions regime �?�¢?? to motivate an intractable Iran; he has not offered unwavering support to Iranian democrats; he has not spoken plainly of victory in Afghanistan; he has purposefully created an air of confusion over his commitment there; and he has not embraced American success in Iraq.
Why not?
The answer is no less connected to neoconservatism than are the international realities that now give rise to the question. Irving Kristol (religion? - Ed) said, almost too memorably, �?�¢??A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.�?�¢?? With that definition in mind, an eminent national-security personage put this perfectly phrased query to me over the summer: �?�¢??Is Obama too arrogant to get mugged by reality?�?�¢??
An excellent question. What the president calls his �?�¢??philosophy of persistence�?�¢?? looks increasingly like the vice of conceit. The new White House imperiousness explains Obama�?�¢??s inability to offer full-throated praise for the Iraq War �?�¢?? an undertaking he staunchly opposed. It also explains his devotion to de-fanging Iran through the voodoo of his personal allure (and to his correspondent obtuseness on Iran�?�¢??s democrats).
It does not explain his purposefully jumbled message of surge and recoil in Afghanistan. On the uncompromising reality of war, Obama has sought a particularly Obamaesque solution: compromise.
The president has been partially mugged. Reality has accosted him and shaken him down for concessions, but it is only a temporary arrangement. Obama�?�¢??s �?�¢??persistence�?�¢?? is, for the time being, intact. That explains the contradictions contained within his war speech.
However, by invoking evil in his peace speech, he has obligated himself to a more decisive course of action and perhaps a new moral seriousness. For there is a deeper neoconservative concern that serves as the foundation upon which the architecture of democracy promotion and hawkishness are built. This is the belief in good and evil, reality�?�¢??s parting gift to the mugged. Sometimes thought of as a quaint and outdated proposal, the assertion that virtue and wickedness are real is at the heart of neoconservative support for American power in the world. The Taliban �?�¢?? which beheads innocents, chops off voters�?�¢?? hands, and subjects women to lives of brutal servitude �?�¢?? is evil. So, too, are Iran�?�¢??s mullahs, who sentence teenagers to hangings for the �?�¢??crime�?�¢?? of homosexuality. Defeating these parties is its own reward. As evil is now part of Barack Obama�?�¢??s war lexicon, he must make this point, and he must speak of victory. For once evil is invoked, compromise is off the table. Evil demands defeat.
[/quote]
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Y3ODE2OTQ0MjAxZTI4Y2UxYmQ1ZmFkOWRmMTQyZTY=
Point 1 is obvious, even to the most casual observer. Point 2 does not follow from 1, nor is it true. Point 3 is also false. America is not using “overwhelming force” even now, 9 years into our AfPak adventure, and we are not obligated to fight “long wars” or even “short wars” based on the flimsy reasoning of 2).
Neoconservatism, embodied in GWB and BHO and as explained by Greenwald, is a failed ideology that needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
[/quote]
Has it occurred to you that Greenwald’s tone is one of criticism, and not approval?
Perhaps bigotry renders you not just blind, but tone-deaf as well.
of course O=W. They’re both getting their checks from the same corporations, right? Hi-ooooooooooooooh!!
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Has it occurred to you that Greenwald’s tone is one of criticism, and not approval?
Perhaps bigotry renders you not just blind, but tone-deaf as well.
[/quote]
I dunno, has bigotry blinded you?
His basic point is that Obama may be a neocon in the making because neocons are “liberals mugged by reality” (the first word in that phrase should be a tip-off to you, but it appears not to be) and Obama is encountering some harsh realities that may steer him towards neoconservatism.
If anything, the tone was one of cautious optimism. The entire article is entitled “Going Neocon” in case you fired off the “bigotry” accusation before actually reading it.
Of course, there is thus far nothing different between Bush and Obama foreign policy-wise.
And it’s laughable for Greenwald to talk about the Taliban when we presided over the ethnic cleansing of Iraq’s Christian population of a fast-dwindling 1 million.
Anyone who trusts the motivations of the likes of Woodrow Wilson and FDR for going to war ought to have their head examined. FDR’s administration was stuffed full of Communists who were, in fact, at odds with the Nazis. Wilson was just a plain war-monger. Interesting that he left Vietnam off the list. That wasn’t a good war? How about Korea?
In fact, most of the American wars of the 20th century were started by Democratic presidents (WWI, II, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo (we’re still there,btw)). Bush I and II got us into Iraq and II got us into AfPak, but the main body count lies in the hands of the Democrats. Neoconservatives like Bush and Obama are simply choosing the path of Democratic presidents of last century.
Anyways, the fact that we’re still in AfPak after 9 years means something is amiss. We clearly have no intention of “winning” (whatever that means). What, exactly, is our goal there, and how do those goals align with our alliance with Pakistan, which is clearly also a terrorist state that we allowed to go nuclear?
I’m sort of just firing this post off into the ether since I know a person like yourself that begins with Leftist ad hominem will probably not read it, especially since you obviously didn’t read the article. Nevertheless, others may come to the conclusion that Hopenchange is the same as good ole GWB.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Has it occurred to you that Greenwald’s tone is one of criticism, and not approval?
Perhaps bigotry renders you not just blind, but tone-deaf as well.
[/quote]
I dunno, has bigotry blinded you?
His basic point is that Obama may be a neocon in the making because neocons are “liberals mugged by reality” (the first word in that phrase should be a tip-off to you, but it appears not to be) and Obama is encountering some harsh realities that may steer him towards neoconservatism.
If anything, the tone was one of cautious optimism. The entire article is entitled “Going Neocon” in case you fired off the “bigotry” accusation before actually reading it.
Of course, there is thus far nothing different between Bush and Obama foreign policy-wise.
And it’s laughable for Greenwald to talk about the Taliban when we presided over the ethnic cleansing of Iraq’s Christian population of a fast-dwindling 1 million.
Anyone who trusts the motivations of the likes of Woodrow Wilson and FDR for going to war ought to have their head examined. FDR’s administration was stuffed full of Communists who were, in fact, at odds with the Nazis. Wilson was just a plain war-monger. Interesting that he left Vietnam off the list. That wasn’t a good war? How about Korea?
In fact, most of the American wars of the 20th century were started by Democratic presidents (WWI, II, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo (we’re still there,btw)). Bush I and II got us into Iraq and II got us into AfPak, but the main body count lies in the hands of the Democrats. Neoconservatives like Bush and Obama are simply choosing the path of Democratic presidents of last century.
Anyways, the fact that we’re still in AfPak after 9 years means something is amiss. We clearly have no intention of “winning” (whatever that means). What, exactly, is our goal there, and how do those goals align with our alliance with Pakistan, which is clearly also a terrorist state that we allowed to go nuclear?
I’m sort of just firing this post off into the ether since I know a person like yourself that begins with Leftist ad hominem will probably not read it, especially since you obviously didn’t read the article. Nevertheless, others may come to the conclusion that Hopenchange is the same as good ole GWB. [/quote]
The term “Neocon” in the title is a derisive term of opprobrium, yes?
So Greenwald–whose religion is immaterial to his article–is being critical. Perhaps critical thinking is foreign to you. Perhaps you simply prefer to blather on, as usual.
As for the ad hominem, bigot, you could at least be proud of the distinction for which you have labored so tirelessly.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
The term “Neocon” in the title is a derisive term of opprobrium, yes?
[/quote]
Uh, no. Greenwald, the late Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol et al see themselves as neocons. Greenwald sees it as a positive thing. The National Review is a neoconservative outfit that purged all of its paleoconservatives (along with Steve Sailer) awhile ago. Google is your friend.
His religion is not immaterial at all. Neoconservatism sprang up in the urban Roman Catholic and Jewish communities as a response to increasingly violent black crime. Greenwald writes for Commentary Magazine (Jewish):
And blogs at Jewcy:
http://www.jewcy.com/user/1674/abe_greenwald
Neoconservative intellectuals are typically Jews obsessed with Israel (Kristol, Greenwald, Goldberg, Podhertz, Prager, etc). Here’s a good article on neoconservatism for you to digest in between your ad hominem slinging:
http://vdare.com/sailer/091025_podhoretz.htm
This is helpful, also:
[quote]His second book, The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, co-written with Ron Dermer, became a “must read” on Embassy Row. It had a major influence on United States president, George W. Bush, and other government officials, who urged their subordinates to read the book:
"If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy... For government, particularly â?? for opinion makers, I would put it on your recommended reading list. It's short and it's good. This guy is a heroic figure, as you know. It's a great book."
In it, Sharansky argues that freedom is essential for security and prosperity, and every people and nation deserve to live free in a democratic society. Suggesting his “town square test”, Sharansky argues that human rights, safety, and stability can only be assured by releasing people from their oppressors and turning them into free societies where each would have the freedom to express his opinion. Therefore, he concludes, the free world must insist on promoting democracy for oppressed people, instead of appeasing dictatorships and doing business with tyrant regimes,[/quote]
So Natan Sharansky, who practically authored points 2 and 3 above, also had an influence on US foreign policy over the past 8 years, and is of the same religion as other neoconservatives mentioned above.
In summary, religion is relevant to this discussion because neoconservative intellectuals mostly share the same religion and broadcast it loudly. Their views are lately getting a lot of Americans killed and maimed for no good reason.
Honestly, if you have nothing to say to any of the points I’ve raised besides calling me a bigot, it’s probably time to just pack up and leave. If you’re a doctor, it should be trivial for you to dismantle my arguments - to jog intellectual circles around me. Yelling “Bigot!” is something for the Left. Of course, if you identify with the neoconservative viewpoint, you’re already a Leftist anyways, so I should just expect this out of you.
ZEB Translation: Oops, I didn’t realize how stupid I really was and I now see there’s no way to pull myself out of the massive hole I’ve dug for myself, and it embarrasses me [as it should], so I’ll try and cause a distraction.
Again, that’s what I thought.
You’re precisely backwards. There is no good vs. evil in Judaism.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
The term “Neocon” in the title is a derisive term of opprobrium, yes?
[/quote]
Uh, no. Greenwald, the late Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol et al see themselves as neocons. Greenwald sees it as a positive thing. The National Review is a neoconservative outfit that purged all of its paleoconservatives (along with Steve Sailer) awhile ago. Google is your friend.
His religion is not immaterial at all. Neoconservatism sprang up in the urban Roman Catholic and Jewish communities as a response to increasingly violent black crime. Greenwald writes for Commentary Magazine (Jewish):
And blogs at Jewcy:
http://www.jewcy.com/user/1674/abe_greenwald
Neoconservative intellectuals are typically Jews obsessed with Israel (Kristol, Greenwald, Goldberg, Podhertz, Prager, etc). Here’s a good article on neoconservatism for you to digest in between your ad hominem slinging:
http://vdare.com/sailer/091025_podhoretz.htm
This is helpful, also:
[quote]His second book, The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, co-written with Ron Dermer, became a “must read” on Embassy Row. It had a major influence on United States president, George W. Bush, and other government officials, who urged their subordinates to read the book:
"If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy... For government, particularly â?? for opinion makers, I would put it on your recommended reading list. It's short and it's good. This guy is a heroic figure, as you know. It's a great book."
In it, Sharansky argues that freedom is essential for security and prosperity, and every people and nation deserve to live free in a democratic society. Suggesting his “town square test”, Sharansky argues that human rights, safety, and stability can only be assured by releasing people from their oppressors and turning them into free societies where each would have the freedom to express his opinion. Therefore, he concludes, the free world must insist on promoting democracy for oppressed people, instead of appeasing dictatorships and doing business with tyrant regimes,[/quote]
So Natan Sharansky, who practically authored points 2 and 3 above, also had an influence on US foreign policy over the past 8 years, and is of the same religion as other neoconservatives mentioned above.
In summary, religion is relevant to this discussion because neoconservative intellectuals mostly share the same religion and broadcast it loudly. Their views are lately getting a lot of Americans killed and maimed for no good reason.
Honestly, if you have nothing to say to any of the points I’ve raised besides calling me a bigot, it’s probably time to just pack up and leave. If you’re a doctor, it should be trivial for you to dismantle my arguments - to jog intellectual circles around me. Yelling “Bigot!” is something for the Left. Of course, if you identify with the neoconservative viewpoint, you’re already a Leftist anyways, so I should just expect this out of you. [/quote]
The labor drones on…and on…
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB Translation: Oops, I didn’t realize how stupid I really was and I now see there’s no way to pull myself out of the massive hole I’ve dug for myself, and it embarrasses me [as it should], so I’ll try and cause a distraction.
Again, that’s what I thought.
[/quote]
Little Ryan,
I’ve schooled you, (as have others) in how to think with the appropriate facts. That you choose to ignore them only speaks to your youth, inexperience and the eagerness that you gobble up all of that spoon fed liberal pabulum that your Profs feed you each day. You think you know what you’re talking about but to the rest of us you sound very hollow your nonsensical theories having been disproved by time. You funny little commy you (roughs up hair and pushes him out the door). Now go have fun on your Christmas break and let the adults talk.