PDA

View Full Version : "I used to be a Neocon"


spiderjones
26 May 2005, 01:05 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/oneill1.html


anyone else in the same boat?

Sovrana
26 May 2005, 06:29 AM
I'm not really convinced this person was a "neocon." Sounds more like a liberal posing as a "recovering neocon" (whatever the hell that means). I just find it hard to believe that someone with such conviction for their beliefs whether neocon or liberal would simply wake up one day at say "WTF."

I don't buy it.

seafoamgreen
26 May 2005, 09:07 AM
I'm not really convinced this person was a "neocon." Sounds more like a liberal posing as a "recovering neocon" (whatever the hell that means). I just find it hard to believe that someone with such conviction for their beliefs whether neocon or liberal would simply wake up one day at say "WTF."

I don't buy it.

Ditto. (hehe) I don't buy it either. Dude never said why he was a neo-con, and i'm not sure that's what he was in the first place. Being pro war and watching foxnews doesn't mean you're a neo-conservative.

Docta
26 May 2005, 10:49 AM
Being pro war and watching foxnews doesn't mean you're a neo-conservative.

ha true. actually i bet many/most true neocons do not watch foxnews and many/most foxnews viewers do not know what a neocon is.

seafoamgreen
26 May 2005, 10:53 AM
Well, i watch foxnews and last time i checked i wasn't a neo-conservative. I just like the foxnews aesthetic. Foxnews production design is to normal news production design as porno movies are to hollywood movies.
I totally should have done better on the SATs.

chuxxter
26 May 2005, 10:55 AM
I very, very rarely watch any news on TV. What does this make me, besides sometimes very uninformed?

BronxDJ
26 May 2005, 11:14 AM
Ditto. (hehe) I don't buy it either. Dude never said why he was a neo-con, and i'm not sure that's what he was in the first place. Being pro war and watching foxnews doesn't mean you're a neo-conservative.

But it does mean you're uninformed (the Fox News part, that is)

Handy Smurf
26 May 2005, 11:15 AM
I very, very rarely watch any news on TV. What does this make me, besides sometimes very uninformed?
it better not make you a dissenter, or...you can just go to Canada

BronxDJ
26 May 2005, 11:18 AM
it better not make you a dissenter, or...you can just go to Canada

Is that where all the dissenters went? We need some back in the US Senate before the Bolton vote. Hey - you Ohio guys got a good republicrat senator - Voinivich. I was a Clevelander when he was mayor. I went to St. Igs with his son. Go George

chuxxter
26 May 2005, 11:22 AM
it better not make you a dissenter, or...you can just go to Canada
Sorry, they don't pay enough in Canada, and their taxes are too high. I guess you're stuck with me for now. :)

BronxDJ
26 May 2005, 11:26 AM
Sorry, they don't pay enough in Canada, and their taxes are too high. I guess you're stuck with me for now. :)

New Paltz is practically Canada anyway, at least to those of us who live in NYC.

chuxxter
26 May 2005, 11:27 AM
New Paltz is practically Canada anyway, at least to those of us who live in NYC.
I am south of Albany. That is pretty far from Canada, but I see your point. :D

Handy Smurf
26 May 2005, 11:28 AM
Is that where all the dissenters went? We need some back in the US Senate before the Bolton vote. Hey - you Ohio guys got a good republicrat senator - Voinivich. I was a Clevelander when he was mayor. I went to St. Igs with his son. Go George
Did you see the video of him talking about the Bolton vote? It looked liked he was practically moved to tears from...i dont know, frustration maybe.

BronxDJ
26 May 2005, 11:32 AM
I heard parts of the speech on the radio. I did not see it. I hope the emotionality does not lose him and his cause some credibility among his colleagues.

Oh, Chuxx, I do know where New Paltz is. I love New Paltz. I was making a joke on New Yorkers who think Tarrytown is so far upstate. Some think Yonkers is, for that matter. But New Paltz is like St. Marks Place put in the Catskills. Very groovy.

jefrey
26 May 2005, 11:33 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/oneill1.html


anyone else in the same boat?

God no, and if I was, I would'nt admit it to any one. I was just told today that the Bush admin. is trying to or already did, put two of his cabinet members on NPR staff. NO conflict of interest there! Anybody here about this?

Docta
26 May 2005, 11:35 AM
so the big question is, will george actually vote against bolton outside of committee???

he and dewine are trading the "moderate ohio senator" tag. voin with bolton and dewine as part of the 14 who made a deal on the nuclear option.

chuxxter
26 May 2005, 11:38 AM
I heard parts of the speech on the radio. I did not see it. I hope the emotionality does not lose him and his cause some credibility among his colleagues.

Oh, Chuxx, I do know where New Paltz is. I love New Paltz. I was making a joke on New Yorkers who think Tarrytown is so far upstate. Some think Yonkers is, for that matter. But New Paltz is like St. Marks Place put in the Catskills. Very groovy.
I know some of those very people. They remind me of the buttheads who say they live in Riverdale, not Da Bronx. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

jd1
26 May 2005, 11:44 AM
I never much cared for DeWine or Voinovitch, but I think it is awesome they are standing up to the far right in the GOP.

--JD

MorningTheft
26 May 2005, 12:29 PM
I never much cared for DeWine or Voinovitch, but I think it is awesome they are standing up to the far right in the GOP.

--JD

That's exactly how I feel. Though I have met Dewine before...he was very nice...and very short, like 5'5''

Shlep
26 May 2005, 01:41 PM
I'm not buying it. I don't think this is legitimate, I think maybe it's someone's attempt at satire, or perhaps some stridently liberal fantasy about some otherwise intelligent person who somehow was a conservative coming to their senses and seeing things their way.

I supported the war in Iraq and watched Fox News when I could get it (in addition to a variety of other sources), and I was hardly a "neo-con." Though I think now "neo-con" has just become a label slapped on people who are right of center whenever people left of center would really rather just say "asshole." I'm come to think now the whole thing was misguided and would rather we weren't there; I don't recall having some Kafka-esque transformation where I woke up jonesing for some chai tea and realizing what a fool I've been.

Orville Wrong
26 May 2005, 09:45 PM
I don't doubt that someone can undergo a political sea change, but really, a Californian claiming to have traversed the entire spectrum following a WTF attack strains credulity.

If Francis Fukuyama raped my sister I might cancel my subscription to Commentary, but I'd hardly move further left than Jacksonianism or maybe revert to being a smug and powerless libertarian.

And, yes, seafoam, I know Commentary is no more. ;)

jefrey
26 May 2005, 09:53 PM
Bump: This is off the beaten path a bit but, I was just told today that the Bush admin. is trying to or already did, put two of his cabinet members on NPR(National Public Radio) staff. NO conflict of interest there! Anybody here about this? The implications here are rediculous!

yoshomon
26 May 2005, 10:41 PM
I very, very rarely watch any news on TV. What does this make me, besides sometimes very uninformed?

By not watching the news on TV, you are MORE informed.

Orville Wrong
26 May 2005, 10:49 PM
Bump: This is off the beaten path a bit but, I was just told today that the Bush admin. is trying to or already did, put two of his cabinet members on NPR(National Public Radio) staff. NO conflict of interest there! Anybody here about this? The implications here are rediculous!
So I guess it was fine for the government to subsidize an ersatz Trotskyite talk shop for decades. Now FINALLY some leftists might wake up to the reasons why it is an extremely stupid idea to have the state in the broadcast business.

Better late than never. NPR/PBS get off the air.

sparkie
26 May 2005, 11:15 PM
i dont buy it. id like to belive that every person has the ability to recognize the bull that goes on in this government and go WTF and start thinking and acting differently. however people believe what they want so much and are so tightly wrapped in it that usually they dont change one day out of the blue, something personal has to happen to them.

the_grusz
27 May 2005, 12:13 AM
I simply want one radio station, one magazine, and one tv station with NO advertising which are non-biased as humanly possible.

I guess this can no longer be. (

I wonder if it could ever be. Any radio station, magazine, or tv station has to be funded by SOMEbody. It seems to me that no matter who that somebody is, the programming director is going to feel pressure to show some deference to whomever the sponsor is, whether it be the government, a corporation, or someone who is independently wealthy.

True objectivity in media is impossible because someone has to foot the bill.

jd1
27 May 2005, 07:41 AM
I disagree with this entirely. used to be, before funding was cut, that tax dollars paid by US citizens were used to fund PBS and NPR. They were great stations and had wonderful programs.I'm not sure I agree with your pessimism about PBS today... There are 2 reasons...

1. PBS still has lots of awesome shows, even today--Nova, Frontline, etc etc.

2. PBS has ALWAYS had corporate sponsorship. Mystery has been sponsored by Mobil Oil since I was a little kid. And waaaay back in the day, I remember the plug for Sears Roebuck & Co. at the end of Mr. Rogers (I thought they were saying "Sears Robot Company").

PBS is still a very good channel... One of the few things I miss from TV.

--JD

chuxxter
27 May 2005, 07:42 AM
By not watching the news on TV, you are MORE informed.
Thank You. I always thought so, but the confirmation is nice. Today's news media does not report the news, as much as they try to manufacture it. When I was younger, newscasters reported mostly facts. Today, rumor and inuendo, on BOTH sides, seems to have replaced cold, hard facts. I am sorry to see this. It belittles us as a society.

BronxDJ
27 May 2005, 07:49 AM
I wonder if it could ever be. Any radio station, magazine, or tv station has to be funded by SOMEbody. It seems to me that no matter who that somebody is, the programming director is going to feel pressure to show some deference to whomever the sponsor is, whether it be the government, a corporation, or someone who is independently wealthy.

True objectivity in media is impossible because someone has to foot the bill.

In New York, we are fortunate to have one of the Pacifica stations. There are stations in LA, Berkley, DC, Houston and NYC. These are almost entirely listener supported. Democracy Now! is one of the shows syndicated nationally by Pacifica. BTW until the recent Budweiser ads, WOXY braodcast stream has been commercial free. GO WOXY!

Leach
27 May 2005, 08:19 AM
I'm not really convinced this person was a "neocon." Sounds more like a liberal posing as a "recovering neocon" (whatever the hell that means). I just find it hard to believe that someone with such conviction for their beliefs whether neocon or liberal would simply wake up one day at say "WTF."

I don't buy it.

If i woke up one day and said "WTF" instead of "What the fuck!" then i would throw my computer out the window.

Orville Wrong
27 May 2005, 08:54 AM
I'm opposed to the notion of public broadcasting, not good programming. I've never seen anything worthwhile on PBS that would not have been either commercially viable in the age of narrowcasted cable programming (see the quality children's shows on Nick, Jr. and Playhouse Disney -- better produced than Sesame Street because Hasbro has deeper pockets than the number seven, apparently), or televised by non-state actors. C-SPAN is a perfect example of naturally occurring private public affairs programming.

In other public service news, Sovrana has started a separate PBS/CPB thread.

Buzzstein
27 May 2005, 09:53 AM
I'm opposed to the notion of public broadcasting, not good programming. I've never seen anything worthwhile on PBS that would not have been either commercially viable in the age of narrowcasted cable programming (see the quality children's shows on Nick, Jr. and Playhouse Disney -- better produced than Sesame Street because Hasbro has deeper pockets than the number seven, apparently), or televised by non-state actors. C-SPAN is a perfect example of naturally occurring private public affairs programming.

In other public service news, Sovrana has started a separate PBS/CPB thread.

you're weird

Johnnylama
27 May 2005, 11:16 AM
I'm opposed to the notion of public broadcasting, not good programming. I've never seen anything worthwhile on PBS that would not have been either commercially viable in the age of narrowcasted cable programming (see the quality children's shows on Nick, Jr. and Playhouse Disney -- better produced than Sesame Street because Hasbro has deeper pockets than the number seven, apparently), or televised by non-state actors. C-SPAN is a perfect example of naturally occurring private public affairs programming.

In other public service news, Sovrana has started a separate PBS/CPB thread.
Then you don't watch enough PBS. For example, the quality of PBS News Hour and Frontline stories is far superior to anything I've seen on CNN, Fox, or MSNBC. As for children's programming- better produced does not equal better quality. All of my daughter (she's 4) favorite shows are on PBS- Jay Jay the Jet Plane, Clifford, Tellitubies, etc. not to mention Sesame Street. Nick Jr. shows are too flashy and at times violent. There is very little educational value as well. I don't even have cable any more because so much of it is crap. The profit motive is not a panacea.

Dammit, I just broke my self-imposed CE/P ban. These ideological fights end up bringing out the worst in me. Okay… try again.

Handy Smurf
27 May 2005, 11:18 AM
see the quality children's shows on Nick, Jr. and Playhouse Disney -- better produced than Sesame Street because Hasbro has deeper pockets than the number seven, apparently
:p
another good Friday of constant laughs on the boards

aqualou
27 May 2005, 12:05 PM
When I was younger, newscasters reported mostly facts. Today, rumor and inuendo, on BOTH sides, seems to have replaced cold, hard facts.
rumor and inuendo if you're lucky. generally they're just spitting out what politicians and special interest groups are feeding them and simply enhancing "got you last" politics. Where did all the investigative reporters go?

stpdgirl
27 May 2005, 12:49 PM
Is that where all the dissenters went? We need some back in the US Senate before the Bolton vote. Hey - you Ohio guys got a good republicrat senator - Voinivich. I was a Clevelander when he was mayor. I went to St. Igs with his son. Go George

Please! If he had any spine, he would have killed the nomination in the judiciary commitiee. The tears are either guilt because he knows he could have made a difference and didn't, or fear because he is half-ass speaking out and knows he may be committing political suicide. What a wimp! I say, if you are gonna do it, do it!

And I LOVE PBS/NPR. Frontline and Antiques Road Show are my faves. Since 97X has been off the radio, NPR is all I listen to. Diane Rheem, Fresh Air, News and Notes, Tavis smiley. These are great shows that have guests from both sides and ranging the whole political spectrum. The Bush administration threatening to take away funding is basically just saying, if you aren't going to say what we want you to say, then find funding elsewhere.