The Neocons: An Illustrated Progression

[Bono]

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm interested in this source for this?

And Shachtman influencing Kristol.. that's seems a wee bit unlikely. Nowadays all they would agree on is the justification in killing loads of people for political goals. And Strauss and Trotsky for that matter.

[Bono]

I'm interested in this source for this?

Sorry, I forgot. Here it is:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.html

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Irving Howe = Cool

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Show this to Angry Weasel. I don't see Pat Robertson anywhere.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And Shachtman influencing Kristol.. that's seems a wee bit unlikely.

Wasn't Kristol in the YPSL?

[patrick1]

A lot of strategically placed punims.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Show this to Angry Weasel. I don't see Pat Robertson anywhere.

This is quite a purist Neo-con piece, you'd be surprised at their positions, and how they apply to today's world. It shouldn't include idiots like Pat Robertson who want to be destructive in the name of their idea of religion.

[Bono]

Show this to Angry Weasel. I don't see Pat Robertson anywhere.

This is quite a purist Neo-con piece, you'd be surprised at their positions, and how they apply to today's world. It shouldn't include idiots like Pat Robertson who want to be destructive in the name of their idea of religion.

Yea, just idiots who want to be destructive for destruction's sake.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Show this to Angry Weasel. I don't see Pat Robertson anywhere.

This is quite a purist Neo-con piece, you'd be surprised at their positions, and how they apply to today's world. It shouldn't include idiots like Pat Robertson who want to be destructive in the name of their idea of religion.

Yes that's my point.

Show this to Angry Weasel. I don't see Pat Robertson anywhere.

This is quite a purist Neo-con piece, you'd be surprised at their positions, and how they apply to today's world. It shouldn't include idiots like Pat Robertson who want to be destructive in the name of their idea of religion.

Yea, just idiots who want to be destructive for destruction's sake.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Show this to Angry Weasel. I don't see Pat Robertson anywhere.

This is quite a purist Neo-con piece, you'd be surprised at their positions, and how they apply to today's world. It shouldn't include idiots like Pat Robertson who want to be destructive in the name of their idea of religion.

Yea, just idiots who want to be destructive for destruction's sake.

Well in the grand scheme of things I'm afraid you totally miss the point, NeoCons such as myself are the natural evolution of classical Liberals, believe it or not Bill Kristol doesn't want wanton destruction of the Middle East, the goal is to expand America for the benefit of America, under the ultimately correct premise that the society under our control benefits as well. I can explain further if you disagree.

[Bono]

Show this to Angry Weasel. I don't see Pat Robertson anywhere.

This is quite a purist Neo-con piece, you'd be surprised at their positions, and how they apply to today's world. It shouldn't include idiots like Pat Robertson who want to be destructive in the name of their idea of religion.

Yea, just idiots who want to be destructive for destruction's sake.

Well in the grand scheme of things I'm afraid you totally miss the point, NeoCons such as myself are the natural evolution of classical Liberals, believe it or not Bill Kristol doesn't want wanton destruction of the Middle East, the goal is to expand America for the benefit of America, under the ultimately correct premise that the society under our control benefits as well. I can explain further if you disagree.

I don't see how that is correct. No society benefits from being controled from thousands of miles away, rather the more local a government is the more it benefits. THis is leaving the whole consequentialism v. deontology issue aside...

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Show this to Angry Weasel. I don't see Pat Robertson anywhere.

This is quite a purist Neo-con piece, you'd be surprised at their positions, and how they apply to today's world. It shouldn't include idiots like Pat Robertson who want to be destructive in the name of their idea of religion.

Yea, just idiots who want to be destructive for destruction's sake.

Well in the grand scheme of things I'm afraid you totally miss the point, NeoCons such as myself are the natural evolution of classical Liberals, believe it or not Bill Kristol doesn't want wanton destruction of the Middle East, the goal is to expand America for the benefit of America, under the ultimately correct premise that the society under our control benefits as well. I can explain further if you disagree.

I don't see how that is correct. No society benefits from being controled from thousands of miles away, rather the more local a government is the more it benefits. THis is leaving the whole consequentialism v. deontology issue aside...

Would you agree that colonialism minus slavery and racism would benefit the perspective 3rd world nation?

[Bono]

Show this to Angry Weasel. I don't see Pat Robertson anywhere.

This is quite a purist Neo-con piece, you'd be surprised at their positions, and how they apply to today's world. It shouldn't include idiots like Pat Robertson who want to be destructive in the name of their idea of religion.

Yea, just idiots who want to be destructive for destruction's sake.

Well in the grand scheme of things I'm afraid you totally miss the point, NeoCons such as myself are the natural evolution of classical Liberals, believe it or not Bill Kristol doesn't want wanton destruction of the Middle East, the goal is to expand America for the benefit of America, under the ultimately correct premise that the society under our control benefits as well. I can explain further if you disagree.

I don't see how that is correct. No society benefits from being controled from thousands of miles away, rather the more local a government is the more it benefits. THis is leaving the whole consequentialism v. deontology issue aside...

Would you agree that colonialism minus slavery and racism would benefit the perspective 3rd world nation?

No, obviously. The colonizers don't have any reason to pursue the third world naiton's welfare.

[Хahar 🤔]

Trotsky?

No.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Trotsky?

No.

Most of the early Neoconservatives were Trotskyists when they were young.

[Хahar 🤔]

Trotsky?

No.

Most of the early Neoconservatives were Trotskyists when they were young.

Roland Friesler was a Communist.

Of course, the way you're putting it, it seems I'm misreading the picture.

[War on Want]

Trotsky?

No.

Most of the early Neoconservatives were Trotskyists when they were young.

lol thats funny. Though the Trotskyist Foriegn Policy seems to be exactly like the Neo-Con one, just with the goal of expanding Communism, instead of Democracy. Wierd.

[Bono]

Trotsky?

No.

Most of the early Neoconservatives were Trotskyists when they were young.

lol thats funny. Though the Trotskyist Foriegn Policy seems to be exactly like the Neo-Con one, just with the goal of expanding Communism, instead of Democracy. Wierd.

yea, that's why we say they are very interwoven

[Verily]

Trotsky?

No.

Most of the early Neoconservatives were Trotskyists when they were young.

Idealists tend not to abandon idealism.