Neocon vs Paleo

okboy63

Board Supporter
For those with conservative readers. Some questions

Would you consider yourself Neoconservative or Paleoconservative ?
What cause or organization represents your views.
If you label yourself as one or the other, why?
 
Here is the wik def
Invalid Link Removed

Sounds like conservatism to me. I would just call it original conservatism. Was there ever a pro welfare conservative ? I missed it completely.

I saw they same sort wordsmithery happen in the software world. They called the mainframe a 'Legacy' system to indicate old technology and please buy PC stuff. The mainframe is still around and your IRS refund is being produced by one.

It is a pretty effective technique in the media driven world we live in. I can't believe they let this Politcal Correct stuff in there own ranks though.
I label your method of dieting for example 'largeglute/small penis nochick method' and my method 'smallwaist horse hung method' .
I need to find a way to apply this strategy at work. A left handed way to say my coworkers suck and I am great without just saying it.
 
I have an issue with Paleoconservativism because it has a head-in-the-sand liberal like foreign policy and because of it's anti-American stance on immigration. Oh, and Paleoconservatives must be stuck in the 1800's because they still have disasterous mercantilist economy policies regarding trade.

1. Foreign policy: Just like liberals say, America is the problem according to these creeps. America has no right to protect the life and liberty of its citizens from aggressor nations. We have to stand back, capitulate, and continue to let bullies harm us. This also relies on the faulty idea that Islamists hate us because we built some bases in Saudi Arabia or something, not because their stated goal is to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate and the United States is the polar opposite of everything they fundamentally stand for.

2. Their stance on immigration is anti-rights and against what the country was founded on. Instead of, Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, they want to send them back. One motivation behind this is their backward understanding of economics. "They tuk er jerbs!" Jobs are not a static quality--when someone takes a job for a lower price that allows companies to make their goods more efficiently and to expand their operations or lower their prices. In the end this creates more wealth for everyone.

Think for a second, if a large proportion of Americans still worked in the textiles industry, rather than Indonesians and Chinese doing it for us. Well, we'd have Americans working on sewing machines and we'd all pay $20.00 for a t-shirt, rather than having it done more efficiently and Americans as a whole saving more money and allowing other people to work in NEW fields that were created because of the surplus of money (like computers?). See "What is seen, and what is not seen" by Frederic Bastiat:

Invalid Link Removed

3. The third thing was their view of trade which assumes that trade is somehow bad for our wealth. They could have either gotten this from the Marxists or the Mercantilists, and it assumes the same fallacy I talked about in point two. Instead of going over it entirely, how about I take an inductive approach and show the differences between nations with open borders and those without:

Ireland, the Celtic Tiger, had large protectionist tarriffs for years then with some trade reforms they changed themselves into the fastest groing economy in Europe.

Hong Kong. Admittedly Hong Kong has other great factors like low taxes and low/even business regulations--but they also have virtually no tarriffs and it has made them a beacon of international trade especially in the financial industry.

Singapore, New Zealand, etc. USA included--one of the reasons why we're rich is because of the extent we trade with other countries unimpeded.

Blah blah... I'm gonna go for a run. When I get back I'll go over what I think is wrong with the standard Neo-Conservative.
 
Most of the Neocon thinkers are ex-Socialist intellectuals. I think they're the people left over from the shift where the left became Western civilization-hating environmentalists. These are the leftists that still loved the West and some of the ideas that it stands for. Christopher Hitchens is a good example, a man who routinely writes about the cultural differences between the people in the Middle East and Westerners. He'll note that the West values political freedom, science and technology, secular government, and for the most part, reason over faith.

Really, I don't think they have an economic policy--or hardly even a domestic policy of their own. The only time they get involved in domestic policy is when it relates to other nations: immigration, free trade. It's good that they push for free trade and open immigration but the rest of their economic policies are centrist (and therefore horrible and wealth destroying).

What stands out is their foreign policy. If you thought I'd be in support of it because I was against the Paleo-con foreign policy, you'll be surprised. The Neocons are only slightly less disasterous in foreign policy, and the result of what they do is the loss of thousands of young American lives.

Although they feign self-interested goals, the purpose of their foreign policy is really altruism. They want to spread "democracy" to countries like Iraq--they want American soldiers to suffer and die in order for Iraqis and Afghanis to have roads, sewers, and hold a mob vote. This policy is tantemount to treason. Many of these people supported sending our poor soldiers off to Sudan; not for the protection of American life and liberty, but to sacrifice our soldier's lives for the sake of backward and primitive tribes. In the end, theirs is a goal of a global welfare where America sacrifices its money and its young men for the most backward of people all over the world, most of whom hate us. I can't think of anything more perverted than this. To sacrifice noble, life-loving Americans for the sake of death worshipping barbaric Iraqis.

America should only go to war for its own interests, not to spread democracy (where the primitives vote themselves into a theocracy based on Islamic law), or help women, or anything else. The responsibility of the American government is to protect American life and liberty and that's it. It is not to sacrifice the rights of Americans--our soldiers have rights too--they're not sacrificial lambs who signed up to be slaughtered.
 
ex_banana-eater said:
Most of the Neocon thinkers are ex-Socialist intellectuals. I think they're the people left over from the shift where the left became Western civilization-hating environmentalists. These are the leftists that still loved the West and some of the ideas that it stands for. Christopher Hitchens is a good example, a man who routinely writes about the cultural differences between the people in the Middle East and Westerners. He'll note that the West values political freedom, science and technology, secular government, and for the most part, reason over faith.

Really, I don't think they have an economic policy--or hardly even a domestic policy of their own. The only time they get involved in domestic policy is when it relates to other nations: immigration, free trade. It's good that they push for free trade and open immigration but the rest of their economic policies are centrist (and therefore horrible and wealth destroying).

What stands out is their foreign policy. If you thought I'd be in support of it because I was against the Paleo-con foreign policy, you'll be surprised. The Neocons are only slightly less disasterous in foreign policy, and the result of what they do is the loss of thousands of young American lives.

Although they feign self-interested goals, the purpose of their foreign policy is really altruism. They want to spread "democracy" to countries like Iraq--they want American soldiers to suffer and die in order for Iraqis and Afghanis to have roads, sewers, and hold a mob vote. This policy is tantemount to treason. Many of these people supported sending our poor soldiers off to Sudan; not for the protection of American life and liberty, but to sacrifice our soldier's lives for the sake of backward and primitive tribes. In the end, theirs is a goal of a global welfare where America sacrifices its money and its young men for the most backward of people all over the world, most of whom hate us. I can't think of anything more perverted than this. To sacrifice noble, life-loving Americans for the sake of death worshipping barbaric Iraqis.
Click to expand...

I think you make some valid points!

I would add that the Neo-Con foreign policy agenda is what I like to call the "GOOD FELLAS" plan. The USA will send an economic advisor to meet with a newly elected leader. That advisor will explain that the USA will "lend" the leader's country a few hundred million dollars, including a nice tip for the leader and his family, if the leader will "play ball" with the US government. So the leader takes the money and invites the US to hang out and "drink for free" with reduced trading rights for the foreign countries natural resources or mineral rights(oil gas,ect)
Then the US does not pay for anything but instead grants further loans at highly favorable rates(an offer they can't refuse)
Everything is great until the leader finds out, that without their natural resources or any hard cash, they have no way to pay back their loans. it as this point where the US generally calls in their loans. They foreign country cannot pay. so they look to deal. The US will offer a loan deferment or even an outright forgiveness of the loan, if the leader allows certain corporations to set up factories that will employ the locals and pay them the going rate of $1 a day. The US will also offer military assistance to assure that the process goes smoothly..and sometimes it does

Eventually, the people of the country figure out that they are being exploited and they will revolt. Two things will happen;

A) They overthrow the leader and the USA makes a new deal with the new leader and the cycle begins again.

B) The leader decides to throw out the corporations because they are the source of the economic cycle of debt, at that point the US will try covert operation to remove the leader or failing that a full military invasion. This choice is similar to the scene in "GOOD FELLAS", when after running up the debt in the bar they torch the place and take the insurance money.

THIS JUST IN---Chavez passed a resolution on Monday 2/26 to nationalize the Venezuelan oil system. They keep at least 60% of the profits. So, start the invasion count down!!!
 
Last edited:
ex_banana-eater said:
Most of the Neocon thinkers are ex-Socialist intellectuals. I think they're the people left over from the shift where the left became Western civilization-hating environmentalists. These are the leftists that still loved the West and some of the ideas that it stands for. Christopher Hitchens is a good example, a man who routinely writes about the cultural differences between the people in the Middle East and Westerners. He'll note that the West values political freedom, science and technology, secular government, and for the most part, reason over faith.

Really, I don't think they have an economic policy--or hardly even a domestic policy of their own. The only time they get involved in domestic policy is when it relates to other nations: immigration, free trade. It's good that they push for free trade and open immigration but the rest of their economic policies are centrist (and therefore horrible and wealth destroying).

What stands out is their foreign policy. If you thought I'd be in support of it because I was against the Paleo-con foreign policy, you'll be surprised. The Neocons are only slightly less disasterous in foreign policy, and the result of what they do is the loss of thousands of young American lives.

Although they feign self-interested goals, the purpose of their foreign policy is really altruism. They want to spread "democracy" to countries like Iraq--they want American soldiers to suffer and die in order for Iraqis and Afghanis to have roads, sewers, and hold a mob vote. This policy is tantemount to treason. Many of these people supported sending our poor soldiers off to Sudan; not for the protection of American life and liberty, but to sacrifice our soldier's lives for the sake of backward and primitive tribes. In the end, theirs is a goal of a global welfare where America sacrifices its money and its young men for the most backward of people all over the world, most of whom hate us. I can't think of anything more perverted than this. To sacrifice noble, life-loving Americans for the sake of death worshipping barbaric Iraqis.

America should only go to war for its own interests, not to spread democracy (where the primitives vote themselves into a theocracy based on Islamic law), or help women, or anything else. The responsibility of the American government is to protect American life and liberty and that's it. It is not to sacrifice the rights of Americans--our soldiers have rights too--they're not sacrificial lambs who signed up to be slaughtered.
Click to expand...

I think David Horowitz(A radical Son is his book and frontpagemag.com is his site) is a better example of a neocon. C Hitchens just came over after 9/11, I read that is when he finally had it with the left.

So your not a liberal or a Neo or a Paleo.
Where does that put you if someone put a gun to your head and forced you to say? What politician most closely resembles your views ? Do any ?
What part of the country do you live in ?
People views on immigration usually change or expand or shrink base on how it affects them day to day. Same with free trade usually. I take it you are talking about legal immigration right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top