Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

Didn't most neocons start out as radical leftists?
They liked the idea of permanent revolution.
At least most of the original neocons were far left liberals.
they were called "neo" conservatives as a joke, but they took to the name and made it their own.It's like the hippies grew up and became yuppies, scary yuppies.I like this movie about them:http://www.indybay.org/uploads/bbc_warparty.rm

You're right. McCain/Feingold is a miserable failure.But limits on what candidates can say should at least be as strict as limits on what people can say in advertisements for products.You can't overtly lie about your product in an ad.
But you can lie all you want, mislead, misdirect, all you want in a political ad.{the voice of Yakoff Smirnoff}"In Russia it was called propaganda. But in America it's free speech! What a country!"

The AEI basically says things like "We think that America should lead the world toward democracy." Vague statements like that.What they mean is "There aren't enough countries out there that American corporations can practically own so we are going to influence the highest powers in government to craft a situation that requires US military occupation of certain areas, thus opening these and surrounding areas for exploitation."What is the AEI, who runs it, where does it get its money?Just a moment...

quote:

---

The Institute is an independent, nonprofit organization supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. AEI is strictly nonpartisan and takes no institutional positions on pending legislation or other policy questions.

---

Yes, no institutional positions on policy!! Basically it's like what Tim Robbins said in Team America:
"Team America is financed by the corporations. The corporations sit in their corporation buildings and are all corporationny....and they make money. Yeah."

I'm sorry, this is funny.
Especially how you capitalized TERRORISM!!!!!

That's awesome.Ok, some foreign soldiers are firing guns into your town.
You have guns and explosives left over from 30 years of civil war.What do you do?I'll bet you'd call it .... TERRORISM!!!!

Man, you are a riot.First off, most of the folks at Gitmo are from Afghanistan.
They were mostly just locals who wanted to fight off the invading infidels.They did not fly planes into buildings and never met UBL.And please tell me what a LEGAL war looks like?
Not like the Iraq war, surely.

They should be charged with a crime and tried.Do you think they are guilty before being proved innocent?Some of them could very well be innocent.

OK, is this not obvious to you?Just a moment...

quote:

---

In Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World (2004), an essay delivered as the Irving Kristol Lecture at AEI's Annual Dinner, Charles Krauthammer examines four contending schools of American foreign policy: isolationism, liberal internationalism, realism, and democratic globalism. After analyzing the sources and merits of each school, he concludes that a variant of realism and democratic globalism, or democratic realism, is best suited to America's position of preeminent power and the challenges of confronting and subduing Arab-Islamic fanaticism.

---

This translates to me as "damn a-rabs are sitting on OUR oil!"They are very in favor of CAFTA:
Just a moment...

quote:

---

President George W. Bush is pressing Congress to ratify the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The agreement between the U.S. and Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua faces a skeptical Congress. But legislators should send CAFTA legislation to the President for his signature for a simple reason: It will improve economic conditions in Central America--and in the U.S.
...
Critics of CAFTA claim that the pact--patterned after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)--will lead to losses of jobs and production in the U.S. But experience suggests otherwise as access to foreign markets allows U.S. producers to expand exports--and hiring{of foriegn workers in countries with little or no labor laws}.
...
{WHO"S AGAINST CAFTA?}
It’s the U.S. sugar industry--legendary for its brazenness in seeking government protections--that has mounted the most vociferous attack on CAFTA.
...
There are foreign policy reasons to favor the CAFTA accord. Since the 1970s, CAFTA nations have moved toward market economies and democracy, becoming commercial and political allies of the U.S.
{{Here's the rub. Most countries of Central America have tried to work toward democracy and market economies in the past, but the US always had a way of interfering probably from advice from AEI). Not even mentioning Nicaragua, are you familiar with the story of Chiquita Bananas and the word slavery?}}

---

Who's really against CAFTA?
http://www.stopcafta.org/

quote:

---

The Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) was signed by trade representatives from El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, the U.S. and later Costa Rica at the end of January. The governments of Central America were forced to concede to the demands of the Bush administration on most key elements of the agreement.

---

quote:

---

Corporate Domination Over Democracy: At the expense of democracy and people's right to self-rule, CAFTA would likely give corporations powers to object to barriers to free trade, including laws people enact for their own protection. For example, NAFTA established the right for companies to sue governments over public-interest laws that may limit their profits. This right has been employed 27 times by companies since 1994.

---

One example of what CAFTA could do:
Alternet.org - 404 Not Found

quote:

---

Harken v. Costa Rica

​

Highlighting one of the flaws in the upcoming CAFTA treaty, Harken Energy sues the nation of Costa Rica for $57 billion for enforcing its own environmental laws.

---

'member who worked for Harken?Anyway, this is one example of corporate expansionism and exploitation supported by the AEI.Another example is the Iraq war, but I just don't have time to get into that one.

hehe on another board I got another guy to admit that we owe our freedom to terrorism.

Why should the American Enterprise Institute be dealing with "confronting and subduing Arab-Islamic fanaticism"? Shouldn't that be done by a military/intellegence/law enforcement "think tank"? Not an economic/capitalist "think tank".To me when they say in their mission:
"The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of freedom--limited government, private enterprise, vital cultural and political institutions, a strong foreign policy and national defense"This means that they are looking at ways the military can open up markets in foreign lands. This is basic colonialism. Then why are we (the West) even there militarily?
I'm not talking about post 9/11. I'm talking about the past 100 years.
The west has had some form of military presence in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.Why would we give a damn about some brown people in the desert?
We don't, we care about what they are sitting on.This has led to clashes and growing animosity between the "2" sides.
It has just escalated in the past decade.It's ultimately all about oil no matter how you look at it. Because that's what the effect of CAFTA will be. Exactly, and under NAFTA thousands of American jobs went to Mexico.
Whole plants shut down to moved to Mexico.
Everybody's happy except the workers that got laid off and the towns that lost their largest employer and tax base. When you say country, what do you mean?
It's been beneficial to certain US corporations and the Mexicans in the new factories. These jobs had to be taken from Americans. Central American farmers are also very opposed because the price of their produce will plummet and they will be SOL.Since these countries economies depend largely on agriculture what do you think the effects might be? For certain US corporations and the Mexican provinces where they located their new factories, sure. Can you list a few of these benefits?
A few examples will do. What else could CAFTA possily be about? Corporations and their stockholders will surely benefit.
US corporations can take advantage of lax central american regulations in some areas, or sue the governments for billions whenever the regulations (mainly environmental) appear to conflict with CAFTA. The couple of examples I can think of off the top of my head are Firestone practially owning Liberia and pretty much harvesting rubber in the early 20th century (through the 1930s) using slave labor and Chiquita pretty much owning Honduras and harvesting bananas with labor that were practically slaves.

I'm sorry, but that's totally awesome.

Why can't you delete posts?This message has been edited by gnojek, 07-19-2005 12:52 PM