Let's get something clear, shall we?

[unixronin]

I have at times in the past been guilty of lumping the Republican Party and neoconservatives together in one bucket.  To anyone who has watched this BBC documentary on the rise of the neoconservatives and of the current spate of Islamic terrorism (warning: 500MB video download), the error of this overgeneralization should be immediately apparent.

So let's get this clear, once and for all:  The neo-conservative movement are not Rpuublicans.  They are merely using the Republican party apparatus for their own ends.  Neither are they in fact truly religious; rather, they are using the large (and largely credulous) self-professed fundamentalist Christian segment of the population, again for their own ends.  Nor are they actually in any respect conservative; they are merely assuming the mantle of conservativism for its perceived aura of respectability.

What they ARE, quite plainly and simply, is neo-fascists.

Comments

[lisa-marli.livejournal.com]

And Hitler and Company would be Proud of how they have used His Name to drive more people into their arms.
Very Scary.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that sounds about right.

[johnkzin.livejournal.com]

Wow.

Amazing (and I've only watched part 1 so far). Absolutely a great piece of actual journalism.

I wonder how long before it gets any kind of wide-spread coverage in the US. Seems to me that getting this aired on PBS and the History channel, say, in late October or very early November ... would be useful. (and, yes, I realize that wouldn't _fix_ the problem, just kick the pendulum into another direction)

[yndy.livejournal.com]

well said!!

*applause*

[ossuarian.livejournal.com]

I see your point. The current administration's foreign policy is under the control of neo-con Republicans, and I think most of the Republican contenders for the next race are also neo-cons. But I've heard the actual genesis of the neo-conservative movement was in the Democratic Party.

I don't know any neo-conservative Democrats, though I suspect they exist. I've met a few neo-conservative Libertarians, though they don't fit any definition of Libertarian that I understand.

[lwj2.livejournal.com]

It does make it interesting for those of us who are conservatives -- y'know, the weirdos that believe we need a postal service, armed forces and that having money in the Treasury isn't high treason.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

All of those are excellent things. However, I suspect that as long as there is no effective accountability for the government spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave, budget deficits and the national debt will continue to balloon. When was the last time there WAS actual money in the Treasury, rather than a large stack of scrawled IOU notes?

[lwj2.livejournal.com]

The effective accountability lies in the House of Representatives, with which financial legislation must originate.

The House's accountablility comes up every two years.

The scrawled IOUs aren't necessarily a bad thing, but there needs to be revenue planning to pay them off. Bluntly, this means increasing taxes or cutting services, something neither party is willing to face.

I'm in favour of cutting back the Federal government, they've managed to intrude themselves in spheres they have no business in. Their usual manner of nudging in is to wave a bunch of funds at state and/or local governments, then threaten to cut them off if the locals don't come to heel. The Interstate Highway System/Highway Trust Funds and nationalised speed limits are a good example of this. So, for that matter, is federal aid to education.

You can pay for it locally, increase local taxes and tell the feds to take a hike, or you can knuckle under.

But before any of that is done, a competent, fiscally conservative House needs to be elected, the same in local assemblies and the Senate.

Good luck. I haven't seen very many that fit that description of either party.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Indeed. This is why I'm a libertarian. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, individual liberties (and the associated responsibility) paramount, and in favor of cutting government back to its Constitutionally mandated role.

[lwj2.livejournal.com]

And there you have it. You, at least, understand that a chequeing account can only be so far overdrawn before the bank becomes concerned.

I'm not a libertarian, at least with a capital "L" -- although I've voted for Libertarian candidates in the past.

I believe in the Constitution and the Amendments thereto. All of them, even the repulsive income tax one. The Tenth seems to be a particular orphan, if not a red-headed stepchild.

We'll see what November brings.