| Author |
Message |
    
DrFalomar
Citizen
Username: Drfalomar
Post Number: 323
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:08 pm: |     |
"code for Jew" Have you gone completely around the bend?
Bush implied it countless times, but no he never came out and directly said it so people like you could make just such a ridiculous assertion.
How many people from the intelligence community and former members of Bush's cabinet have to write books and source articles before you'll believe the CIA was coerced? |
bobk
Citizen
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 6229
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:10 pm: | |
Yes, if you don't support the neo-cons you are an anti semite. Everyone knows that.
If you are a Jew and don't support the Neo-cons you are in denial and a friggin' WASP wannabe.
Simple. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 626
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:11 pm: | |
This should help:
NEOCON 101 |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 346
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:12 pm: | |
Tom,
it's essentially a way for the neocons to shame their opponents into silence. Many (if not most) of the prominent neocons, especially within the Bush Admin, are Jewish. They claim that to use the lable "neocon" is de facto anti-Semitism.
This is despite the fact that "neoconservatism" has a definition that describes very well the beliefs of Bush's foreign policy advisors. The hallmark of the philosophy is a belief in active intervention (often military) around the world, to promote American values. This definition has nothing to do with Judaism, but because Perle, Wolfowitz, et al are Jewish, many people accuse those who use the term of anti-Semitism.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2510
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:24 pm: | |
Reagan was a.....Jew?
Bush just implied it so I could make the assertion that he didn't say it? |
Guy
Citizen
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 194
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:25 pm: | |
Welcome back, Singlemalt. Now we need Duncan. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 627
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
The following article appeared in the WSJ's Opinion Journal last week. It makes a sarcastic, yet interesting reference to using the term "neocon" to imply "Jew".
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005656
I am back but will not get into personal bitching matches with anyone. I will ignore the idiots. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 3958
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:39 pm: | |
OK, well now I've learned a thing or two about neocons and their history. Thanks. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 127
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:53 pm: | |
Way to stick to your convinctions for almost 6 hours, singlemalt. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 628
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
I was having a tough morning Robert. Thanks for having me back. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 988
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 3:12 pm: | |
Oh, SM, I dismantled that last week. Why do you keep calling it "interesting" without saying whether you agree to it? You should see through that terribly illogical and ugly rubbish. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 629
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 3:13 pm: | |
?? |
Guy
Citizen
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 197
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 3:15 pm: | |
SM , I think Themp was referring to you WSJ oped. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 989
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 3:16 pm: | |
There fixed my post.
Don't you remember my glorious refutation of that junky opinion piece?
|
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1356
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
Bush lies all the time. Here is a recent one:
quote:Despite President Bush (news - web sites)'s promise to spend $9 billion on reconstruction contracts in Iraq (news - web sites) in coming months, administration and congressional officials said on Thursday it could take more than a year to pay out that much money.
With reconstruction held up by an intensifying insurgency, the administration has faced criticism over the slow pace of spending. Just $1.2 billion has been paid out of the $18.4 billion Bush asked Congress to rush through last year.
Bush sought to counter the criticism last week by promising that over the next several months "over $9 billion will be spent on contracts that will help Iraqis rebuild schools, refurbish hospitals and health clinics, repair bridges, upgrade the electricity grid, and modernize the communications system."
Congressional aides in both parties have reacted skeptically to Bush's $9 billion figure, saying there was no way to spend that much money that quickly given the violence in Iraq.
On Thursday, as Bush prepared to debate Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) in Miami on security issues, including Iraq and the war on terror, White House officials sought to clarify the $9 billion estimate.
The officials said Bush was not talking about actual spending for work on projects themselves. Rather, they said, he was referring to the amount of money that had been "obligated" to contracts.
The figure promised by Bush included $7 billion already under contract but not yet spent on the ground, officials said. A further $2 billion worth of contracts would be added within the next several months.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=6&u=/nm/20040930/pl_nm/ira q_usa_reconstruction_dc
So by spending money he actually meant continuing to talk about spending money but not actually doing it because the country is a disaster and we screwed up the occupation. Got it. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 3887
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 3:31 pm: | |
Consistent with the thread title, especially the part about "integrity" and "debates":
RIGHT NOW, on the ABC News Website, there is a page all set to go commenting on the debate being held later today:
quote:CORAL GABLES, Fla. Sept. 30, 2004 — After a deluge of campaign speeches and hostile television ads, President Bush and challenger John Kerry got their chance to face each other directly Thursday night before an audience of tens of millions of voters in a high-stakes debate about terrorism, the Iraq war and the bloody aftermath.
The 90-minute encounter was particularly crucial for Kerry, trailing slightly in the polls and struggling for momentum less than five weeks before the election. The Democratic candidate faced the challenge of presenting himself as a credible commander in chief after a torrent of Republican criticism that he was prone to changing his positions.
The rest is at
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040930_1184.html
(At least, until they take it down until "after") |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 630
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 3:39 pm: | |
As someone who is a "Jew for Bush" I did find the article quite interesting. While it is based on the author's opinion and observations, I can't say she is completely off base. There are a lot of people who use the word "neocon" without really knowing who "neocons" are. I've known the origin of the word and actually wrote a paper on it during a political science course in college. Before that, I thought it was a way of describing ultra-conservatives in general. That is simply not the case. Most conservatives have a much different view on foreign affairs that more matches that of Clinton or the first President Bush. Since 9/11, the current President Bush has taken a much more aggressive neoconservative approach to foreign affairs. I think 9/11 has made a lot of people neoconservatives in how they think the United States should handle foreign issues, myself included. I would never call myself a neoconservative but I may have turned into one without even knowing it. She covers this well when she quotes Democrats who are saying to themselves now, “Oh my God, I might be a Republican”.
Pat Buchanan (in my opinion) hates all Neocons and Jews in general. That's no secret. As a matter of fact, he has gone on record as saying the "neocons" are "killing the Republican Party". Now, I am not in Pat's head but the word "neocon" does provide him with a convenient word to use that is generally accepted by the media and has roots going back to liberal Jews who converted to the Republican Party in the 70's. He can use this word freely to spew his hate and get his message across in a generally accepted format. The same Jews he feels have taken "his Republican party" in the wrong direction. The author also gives some examples from Maureen Dowd who uses the term all the time and is well aware of the history and who the true neocons are. I'm not sure why she uses the word with such anger.
I can't say I agree with everything the author says, but it is an awfully interesting perspective.
|
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 21
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
Either the worst verb tense error or the worst journalism ever. Either way, poor form for a news organization. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 631
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
For clarification on the two stories I reference, here are the links:
The Wall Street Journal Opinion Page Article
The CSM Presents "NeoCon 101" |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 990
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
Here's an interesting perspective from WSJ writer:
http://poynter.org/forum/?id=misc |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 632
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
Themp,
What does that have to do with neocons?
I went back and re-read your post from last week. I don't think I repsonded directly because you missed the entire purpose of the article.
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=26018&post=282297#POST282297 |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 251
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 5:22 pm: | |
Well.
I'm now convinced you can try to start virtually ANY topic here now and it will lapse into the same bickering and posturing noises as all the other threads. Read this thread and go read the others, they're indestinguishable. I was specifically hoping to see what people had to say about the process associated with sponsoring and running the debates in the first place, and how they've changed over the years, perhaps most significantly when the League of Women Voters threw their arms into the air and left the room back in '88:
"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debates . . . because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
Perhaps I should have dug up that quote when I started the thread. Does anyone bother to look behind the curtain anymore? Do you believe the CPD operates with integrity in its sponsorship and control of the debates? Even George Bush the Elder was critical of the CPD, calling the debates "rehearsed appearances" that are "too much show business." Does the CPD serve the interests of the electorate?
|
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 991
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 8:18 pm: | |
What was the purpose?
You mean the 'why' - as in 'why' was it written? to obfuscate the merits of pro-war argument with the suggestion that questioning those arguments is anti-jewish. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 636
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Themp,
The basis of the article has nothing to do with whether you are for or against the war. The article shows that many who describe others as necons don't really understand who this group of the Republican party is (mostly converted liberal Jews). It's "ok" to attack neocons on the merit of their policies, however there are many who use the word since it's so accepted to spew their hatred. That's the basis of the article.
It has opened the door to people like Pat Buchanan to use the work openly since it's politically correct and accepted.
I agree there are many who understand who the neocons are and have every right to attack their policies. There are others who use it as a politically correct way to attack Republicans Jews. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page