Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hey Neo-con Zombies... What happened to "get over it"??

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
CanOfWhoopAss Donating Member (776 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:38 PM
Original message
Hey Neo-con Zombies... What happened to "get over it"??
The Facist Neo-con Zombies are fighting tooth and nail for the Governorship of Washington State. Why aren't they sore losers for demaning a revote?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002170364_bordersside04m.html

Not to mention they are trying to punish the 4 lawyers in Ohio for contesting results their.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1138
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bobweaver Donating Member (953 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Winning and gaining power is the only thing that ever matters to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. I call 'em the NeoClan. They'll get over it - one way or another
They better watch the precedent that they set - power in this country is fleeting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. what precedent are
they setting? Elections have been contested before. 2000 springs to mind. If they think they have a chance in the courts, why not? We certainly wouldn't hesistate, nor should we.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ottozen Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. They must hang together,
or they just might hang separately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. It all depends
on who's ox is gored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. They don't play by the rules! You know-It's good for me but not for you!
Hypocrites! It's beginning to REALLY piss me off! These bastards make me think I need anger management! They certainly evoke powerful emotions...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. playing by the rules
is a joke to the hard core. They make their own rules. Don't like the House ethics rules, change the rules so white collar criminals "rights" are protected. They are cold and calculating and they have sold their souls to the Devil long ago. And the Devil must be continually paid. Fight them but don't ever expect them to change, not even on their deathbeds. They do not know what honesty and integrity is. No clue. A serious deficiency, a disorder that would be sad if it weren't so destructive.

We are fighting for Voting Rights but we are also fighting for the Moral Values that are really in jeopardy in this country--truth, justice, ethical behavior. Everything we hold sacred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Exactly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jasmeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. Logic does not work for these assholes! I think that is what
makes them such difficult opponents. If the dems were this illogical, the repubs would be pointing it out through every means they had. That's what the dems should do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zan_of_Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
9. Read up on Leo Strauss. The neocons studied his stuff.
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 01:41 PM by Zan_of_Texas
He taught that power was everything. The masses need to be fooled by the power elite. The world belongs to the strong and powerful, and fairness does not enter the equation.

The neocons were highly influenced by Strauss' work.

Here's a fine introduction, by DU's Eloriel, from an old post:
<ttp://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7200&forum=DCForumID70&archive=>


* Though he died in 1973, Leo Strauss's influence probably began to be felt most keenly in the 1980s, right on through to today.

* Strauss, a German Jew, was entirely comfortable and even supportive of fascism, but left Germany in 1938 because of Nazism's rabid and brutal anti-Semitic focus. Strauss preferred what he called "universal fascism" which was a fascism that included Jews. One of Strauss's students, neo-con Michael Ledeen, has even referred to himself as a "universal fascist."

* Strauss was a philosopher, not a political scientist, who focused on the classics (esp. Plato) but who was infuenced by Germans who also influenced Hitler's thinking including Nietsche and Heidegger.

* A number of neo-cons, including Paul Wolfowitz and many others who populate the halls of the Pentagon and a good many Washington think tanks as well as the halls of academe across the country, studied under Strauss or his more prominent protogees such as Alan Bloom.

* Other prominent Straussians include William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Victor Davis Hanson (who seems to a primary influence of Donald Rumsfeld), Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Gary Schmitt the founder of PNAC, Abram Shulsky who runs the OSP at the Pentagon (the ones who came up with all that "proof" of WMD in Iraq, despite CIA protestations to the contrary), Robert Bok, Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, illiam Bennett, and many others. (A complete list of Straussian students and followers would be quite a boon!)

* What is most pertinent about Strauss and his students and protogees is a set of principles which one can readily see operative in this administration. There are several articles that outline these principles very well. An understanding of what the Straussians believe is imperative to understand what is going on in this administration.

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
<http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15935>

Rule One: Deception

It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical - divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."

snip

Second Principle: Power of Religion

According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.

At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."


"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing," Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.


Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism

Like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united - and they can only be united against other people."

Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."

"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars - not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny" - as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983 - that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a " myopic national security."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 04:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC