Support NeoGAF

[Cheebs]

Based on my definition, NO.

Care to explain what is "conservative" about supporting the war?

 

[skrew]

Andrew J. Bacevich


Andrew J. Bacevich (born 1947 in Normal, Illinois) is a professor of international relations at Boston University, former director of its Center for International Relations (from 1998 to 2005), and author of several books, including American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of US Diplomacy (2002) and The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War (2005). He has been "a persistent, vocal critic of the US occupation of Iraq, calling the conflict a catastrophic failure."[1] In March of 2007, he described George W. Bush's endorsement of such "preventive wars" as "immoral, illicit, and imprudent."[1][2] His son died fighting in the Iraq war in May of 2007.[1]


I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was. I think his objectivity flew out the window years ago. Losing his son, RIP, probably threw him over the edge.

I love this line of reasoning, those most objective about the war are the ones who made no sacrifices at all? Maybe you have no objectivity since you have made no sacrifices at all?

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was.

Since you have made sixteen replies in this post, maybe you should take your time and read the article? Its a pretty good strategy though, attack the author/mag since you can't attack the article.

 

[bob_arctor]

Man, threads about Iraq are really shitty nowadays. In the immortal words of Tony Montana:

Is this it? This what it's all about?

 

[APF]

Man, threads about Iraq are really shitty nowadays.

.

 

[Stoney Mason]

.

Hai gais did u here about this ronpaul gai hes a conservativ against teh war

.

 

[Triumph]

There are many definitions depending on their views

Take Rush Limbaugh - Right Wing Zealot
Pat Buchanan - God is looking down and shaking his head Zealot

Like I said it is a case by case deal.

So what you're saying is that the GOP is like 31 flavors of Zealot?

 

[coldvein]

So what you're saying is that the GOP is like 31 flavors of Zealot?

and bizarre fetishists. not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Verano]

So now the "American Conservative - the author of the article" is starting to swing on a few issues. Congrats, the more your read the more you see my desire NOT to define him as one. It is not just his stance on the war, but you are starting to see and admit to it.

fancy Straw men much?

 

[scorcho]

What you label something might be different than what I would. Your meaning of the word is different then mine. For example, let me label you. You come off like a bit of an pretentious, thesaurus abusing, arse. Yet I am sure your parents loved you and others fine your company... Well hold on let me dig into your bag of goodies.

so all this, and what you fall on is, surprise, another personal criticism instead of a substantive response. well done sir. btw, i don't use a thesaurus. i'm just really good at waxing my GRE vocab.

as to what conservative means, maybe you should research a bit before you let your fingers flail away on the keyboard. i mean, you'd have to first overcome your pillory towards poly (sic) sci teachers, academia, books and words, but i have faith in you.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0814797997/?tag=neogaf0e-20 for the historical evolution of the term

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1932236430/?tag=neogaf0e-20 really good at showing the division of conservative thought over the last 20 years

oh, by 'fine my company' did you mean 'find my company'? my god.

 

[Triumph]

and bizarre fetishists. not that there's anything wrong with that.

Turn-ons include whipping submissives while quoting Milton Friedman, coded racism, shitting on my slaves and the poor, water torture and paying as little in taxes as humanly possible. Also wars that kill brown people.

 

[wave dial]

Based on my definition, NO.
Based on someone else's definition, YES.

so, you are the ones who define people are? in other words, it's your definition that matters, not anyone else's?

and oh, how do you define "liberal", since you tend to attack liberals a lot--even if the debate is on only one topic in the political spectrum

 

[bdoughty]

so all this, and what you fall on is, surprise, another personal criticism instead of a substantive response. well done sir. btw, i don't use a thesaurus. i'm just really good at waxing my GRE vocab.

as to what conservative means, maybe you should research a bit before you let your fingers flail away on the keyboard. i mean, you'd have to first overcome your pillory towards poly (sic) sci teachers, academia, books and words, but i have faith in you.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0814797997/?tag=neogaf0e-20 for the historical evolution of the term

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1932236430/?tag=neogaf0e-20 really good at showing the division of conservative thought over the last 20 years

oh, by 'fine my company' did you mean 'find my company'? my god.

OMG a typo...

I was asking for YOUR definition of "conservative" is. Not what a book says. Stop avoiding the question by taking the easy road out.

Words only have meaning when it's shared and understood among other people. You can define words to be whatever you want but it's pointless if others don't give a damn.

...which is increasingly likely given your attitude.

EDIT: Oh, and it's hilarious to see you talk about "level headed" when you immediately leaped upon the original poster and proceeded to fill the thread with rants about liberals.

I still stay level headed outside of that last poster (guy in first quote) who seemed to enjoy berating me yet does not seem capable of answer the question he accuses me of not knowing. I find that hilarious. Wow, links to Amazon and a typo.

 

[Triumph]

OMG a typo...

I was asking for YOUR definition of "conservative" is. Not what a book says. Stop avoiding the question by taking the easy road out.

I can answer this one!!!

 

[bdoughty]

Exactly, that is a perfect definition.

So please excuse me as I walk out of this thread, keeping my sanity intact. OU-Texas is on in a couple hours.

 

[Triumph]

Exactly, that is a perfect definition.

So please excuse me as I walk out of this thread, keeping my sanity intact. OU-Texas is on in a couple hours.

You sure you're not gonna shit on some people and count your money?

 

[wave dial]

Exactly, that is a perfect definition.

So please excuse me as I walk out of this thread, keeping my sanity intact. OU-Texas is on in a couple hours.

so... he runs from the argument before he explains why he arrogantly pidgeonholes people, ignoring the person's on self-classification

 

[scorcho]

OMG a typo...

I was asking for YOUR definition of "conservative" is. Not what a book says. Stop avoiding the question by taking the easy road out.

at its core conservatism holds to the belief that radical societal change should be avoided, and that traditional (status quo) values, institutions, whatever, should be preserved. it's a conceptual definition that avoids rote policy diatribes because, guess what, it encompasses a wide strata of diverging and oft times conflicting world views.

but then again, what does my view of conservatism have to do with your decidedly narrow (see: idiotic) interpretation? like i suggested above, go read some. you'll be surprised to learn that the editors and authors of those books have REALLY STRONG credentials, so you are free to actually read and internalize the writings without sourcing out whether you feel they're 'conservative' enough, whatever vapid classification for that you have is.

and seriously, don't try to flag someone for having proper grammar and an actual vocabulary when a good number of your posts are filled with grammatical or spelling errors.

 

[worldrunover]

Exactly, that is a perfect definition.

So please excuse me as I walk out of this thread, keeping my over-inflated self worth (that has so many holes punched through it that I can't even begin to dig my way out of it) intact.

Fixed.

 

[Nerevar]

these threads are a lot less interesting thanks to the "ignore" feature. I'd turn it off but .... nah.

 

[Stoney Mason]

so... he runs from the argument before he explains why he arrogantly pidgeonholes people, ignoring the person's on self-classification

Bdoughty has been behaving very odd lately. He wouldn't know me since I switch my username on every forum but we've been on many of the same ones and while he's always been a bit abrasive and curmudgeony, this recent run as the liberal-nator on the OT has been decidedly weird.... In other words he's normally a better poster imo.

 

[scorcho]

In other words he's normally a better poster imo.

and quite persuasive too. i haven't bought a Wii just based on his tag

 

[Triumph]

and quite persuasive too. i haven't bought a Wii just based on his tag

Well, I haven't bought a wii because Fire Emblem isn't out yet.

 

[Gaborn]

I find it funny that people who support the war consider themselves conservatives, and not Wilsonian liberals... because really, that's what most of them are.

 

[scorcho]

I find it funny that people who support the war consider themselves conservatives, and not Wilsonian liberals... because really, that's what most of them are.

well yeah, the whole neoconservative movement was an indictment from liberals that the country and 'left' were drifting far away from the concept of wilsonian idealism.

 

[Gaborn]

well yeah, the whole neoconservative movement was an indictment from liberals that the country and 'left' were drifting far away from the concept of wilsonian idealism.

Oh, I know, I suppose it was more a reaction to the general comments that anyone who opposes the war is not a "conservative," the lack of knowledge of the historical context of conservatism from the neo-cons has always fascinated me, they seem to think that conservative political thought began sometime around the early 80s.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

I stopped reading once I looked into who the author was. I think his objectivity flew out the window years ago. Losing his son, RIP, probably threw him over the edge.

Too bad, you should have read it. I don't agree with everything he says, but it was well put, particularly his conclusions about terrorism.

Sounds like a liberal who has some ethics and moral values? There are so few they have yet to come up with a name for them?

Oh I see, you're a complete doorknob. Never mind then.

 

[scorcho]

i agree, although as an actual political identity i tend to believe that the whole 'conservative movement' began to crystallize with Reagan administration.

as to not knowing the history - pfff, don't you know that the OU-Texas game is more important?!

 

[Gaborn]

i agree, although as an actual political identity i tend to agree that the whole 'conservative movement' began to crystallize with Reagan administration.

as to not knowing the history - pfff, don't you know that the OU-Texas game is more important?!

Well there's no question that Reagan revitalized Republican Conservatives and solidified a branch of conservatism, but I would say that Barry Goldwater was truly the last vitalizing force of Conservatism, Reagan was a mere shadow. I still think AuH2O's greatest quote was:

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.

Incidentally, college football has frankly sucked since the Big Ten network was introduced.

 

[Eric P]

warren ellis?