You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘neocon’ tag.

Two brilliant and so simple but still so brilliant comments by VikingLS at The American Conservative – on Hillary’s supporters:

 

  • VikingLS says:

    “I don’t like her. I wished Biden or Warren was running against her. They could have given her the run for her money Sanders, as an avowed socialist, could not. ”

    Sanders looks like he tied her in Iowa and is polling ahead of her in New Hampshire. He IS giving her a run for her money. The reality is that he’s too far to the left, not for the country in general, but for upper middle class Democrats who don’t want their taxes to go up.

    You all just need to admit that you prefer Clinton to Sanders because you prefer the status quo, and that Clinton, a socially moderate small government fiscal conservative IS what you want, and have always really wanted.

  • VikingLS says:

    “The lesser of the two evils. Whomever the GOP nominates is guaranteed to be more pro-Wall Street and more pro-war.”

    This really isn’t very likely. Despite the shrieking about Cruz wanting to carpet bomb ISIS Clinton’s advocacy of the the Libyan war and her desire to play chicken with Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria indicates that she is equally pro-war as any of the Republicans.

    Obama and Bill Clinton always got support from the majority of Democrats for their wars, so there will be no opposition to her military adventurism. Ultimately it will be “well she must know what she’s doing, she’s one of us after all”

    You all just need to admit that winning the culture war is more important to you than wars that mostly kill foreigners and maybe some working class kids who went into the army to pay for college.

    ____________

    What I saw clearly sometime ago: Democrats are major neocons, while never admitting it – and they always justify their evil and morally bankrupt “neoconnery” by saying the Republicans are worse. How could anyone hold them accountable, they ask?

    It’s no wonder the LGBT mafia has endorsed Hillary. She is the union of military and sexual perverts.

    ____________

    This was also a nice one:

    PAUL MORELLI 6 hours ago

    At this point, what difference does it make..or something like that. She will say anything to get elected and she is a horrible candidate. Not just because she is a phony, corrupt, immoral (ask Vince Foster in your next life) and a “congenital liar”, but she is really bad on the stump. Who else would be having such a difficult time with a SOCIALIST?

    ___________

    🙂 Indeed.

    _______________
    MJR says:
    February 4, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    From an outsider’s perspective it looks like the Democrats have their own “What’s the matter with Kansas” issue. They don’t seem to be bothered by Clinton being a oligarch and Wall Street enabler, as long as she toes the line on identity politics. While Wall Street has endured an a tsunami of criticism from the left, I rarely hear the cartel in Silicon Valley criticized, except on the sacred issue of “diversity”.

    The left is okay with oligarchy as long as it’s socially liberal, and the mainstream right seems to consider oligarchy the natural outcome of the Market(peace be upon it). There are simply no mainstream options that offer resistance.

    ___________

    Alan Veenstra said about her Wall Street (bribery) fees:

    $675K is pocket change.   Let’s look at the $1BILLION in the Clinton Crime Family’s foundation.

    Who gave how much.  How much came from foreign nationals while Hildebeast was letting Benghazi calls go to voice mail.

    ______________

    And lastly, did you see this?

    The chart above plots the popularity of the baby name “Hillary” between 1970 and 2014. What you’ll notice right away is that the frequency of the name falls of a cliff starting in 1993, the year Hillary Clinton became first lady.

    Francis Smart of the Econometrics by Simulation blog first pointed this out the other day. He notes that the drop is especially striking, given that the popularity of “Hillary” was rising sharply upward until 1992 or so, the year the Clintons first came on to the national stage.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/05/the-clintons-ruined-the-name-hillary-for-new-parents/

    The woman is a curse.

    How’s being a scumbag of a woman worked out for ya, Hillary? Did the money you looted and politically prostituted yourself for compensate the trash that you’ve become?

     

     

     

 

William Dalton says (in a comment at TAC):
September 22, 2015 at 3:04 am

“Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” But is this true? A decade after his beer hall putsch failed in Munich, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party won the largest number of Germans ever to vote in a democratic election. He had succeeded in the marketplace of ideas. Did that democratic ratification make Hitler’s ideas true?”

Pat Buchanan knows history well enough to know that Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party had not won a plurality of seats in the Reichstag, nor had President Hindenburg been convinced to appoint him Chancellor of Germany, because Hitler had “succeeded in the marketplace of ideas”. A majority of Germans considered Hitler’s ideas to be ridiculous, even when they gave his party a victory. They did so because, in a country in which, under the Weimar Constitution, it had proven impossible to elect a moderate government which could maintain the peace and suppress radical militia roaming the streets, and faced with a choice of government led by either Nazis or Communists, a plurality chose, and a majority approved, the party they saw to be the lesser evil.

It is not far distant from the choice Americans currently have, between a party representing warmongers eager to institute a police state for the protection of “national security” and a party dedicated to instituting a welfare state guaranteeing each citizen, and non-citizen, all the necessities of life, governed by coalition of sexual libertines and worshipers of Baal and Ashtoreth. When either one or the other gets elected, it won’t be because they have been successful in selling their wares in America’s “marketplace of ideas”. It will be because they have succeeded in scaring the bejeezus out of Americans at the prospect of again empowering the alternative.


 

 

I would add that the choice today is different. First because, for practical purposes, the US has not one, but two major neocon parties – the only difference is that one is slightly a bit more neocon than the other.

Obama and Clinton did not dismantle the military/industrial complex – nor had any intent or demand from their constituents to do so. Clinton played golf at times during the Rwandan genocide was happening – a testament to just what monsters liberals are. US arm sales that spread death and destruction to millions of civilians worldwide continues unabated – and receives robust support from liberals and Democrat voters. And there is probably no difference between Hillary and Bush regarding war and imperialism, while there may have been a very small one between Bush and Bill.

Seven years into the Obama administration and the Patriot Act police state is just as much implanted as when Bush went to clamor for its existence. In a little Twitter feud this week, a liberal shot back that the maintenance by Obama and all the Dems  of the Patriot Act and the current US police state is Bush’s fault, since Bush started it.

Seriously.

These people actually vote and in their crazy minds, only Republicans are neocons, no matter how much both are exactly for the same kind of things. It’s no consolation, but at least Republicans don’t engage in this level of 1984-ish twisting of reality about themselves. I always find people who lie on such barbaric levels disturbing – specially since it’s collective and involving millions of people.

In the minds of Democrats, the fact that they can point their fingers at Republicans for doing the same thing they do entitles  them  to absolve themselves of all responsibility regarding the evil they are and do. They are the American version of “Eichmann in Jerusalem”, the responsibility for every neocon act of a liberal lies with Bush/Republicans and they never acknowledge anything they do is actually their own doing.

Lastly, Dalton above fails to mention that the welfare liberal state is a state full of sexual violence and is currently implementing the destruction of fundamental civil rights, like freedom of speech and the right to an ethical society in the sphere of personal relationships, so it certainly does not provide “the basic necessities”  citizens need.

What Americans can choose from are two very corrupt political parties, one which is particularly insane for not admitting its neocon attitudes and doings (the Democrats) and the other one which is a little bit more straightforward, while being just as destructive for most practical purposes.

This is “democracy” in the 21st century. Much like Rome a couple of millennia ago.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: