2008 US Presidential Election - Page 16

On August 26 2008 06:53 a-game wrote:
you know, the edwards scandal was so similar to what mccain did in his first marriage, i really don't understand why the media barely mentioned mccain in that context.

i mean mccain found a new girl while still in wedlock with his health disabled wife.

edwards found a new girl while still in wedlock to his health disabled wife.

yet they never really mentioned mccain's similar story and i bet there's a huge percentage of the public that have no idea mccain pulled a john edwards back in the day

On August 26 2008 05:14 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
Kaesi wrote:

"The fact that anyone can fall in line with the Neo-con movement is incredible. It really is. In the 1950's I could see it happening, but in today's world? With the Internet? It's appalling. Not that liberalism is the salvation. But holy hell, neo-con philosophy is beyond retarded. Why don't we just sell our country to Lockheed Martin, Exxon, and the Fed already?"

Perhaps you know more than you reveal [indeed, you dont make an argument just an assertion and so perhaps this post is way overboard but maybe you and others will find it informative. It was because of my disagreements with neo-cons that I did a little reading on them and what I found suprised me.]-- but the above quote demonstrates a real and I think important lack of knowledge on your part. Understanding the roots of neo-conservative thought is for your own good. I assume you are more left-leaning and as a result you should probably understand the congruences between your position and the neo-cons before you call them retarted.

The neo-conservative movement was developed by a group of New York, Jewish, Ex-Communist intellectuals. The neo-cons agree with the communists/socilialists // democratic socialists (ie., those who don't advocate a violent worker revolution) that promoting "the greater good" "common good" etc etc. is the goal of the government. However, as communism failed again and again around the world (that doesn't mean it can't ever work) these socialists began to draw new conclusions. That is, they began to think that something was wrong at the very foundation of their political philosophy (probably based on the inability to restrict self-interset). They saw the relative prosperity in market based economies and the relative poverty of state-controlled markets. Perhaps their analysis was premature, but when they looked at the facts presenting themselves around the world they decided to shift their views. The new view was one that advocated capitalism only as much as their economists and analysts tell them is good for economic growth//common good. They are not advocates of laissez-faire. They agree with Marx's arguments on the accumulation of capital .They don't think that self-interset is a "good" thing. They are pragmatists through and through who beleive the free-market should be used only because of its social value. They are collectivists. They beleive positive (ie., literal not merely negative-obligatory) moral values can (and possibly should) be asserted by the government -- which anyone who argues for the redistrubution of wealth by force implicitly accepts.

Your criticism -- a marxist shot [ie., monopoly/explotation] would be better leveled at libertarians or conservatives that fall under the milton friedman type.