The Invasion of ATS

I figured it was an invasion of kids since school is out, happens every year and shakes things up for awhile. Instead it's more leftist drivel as if ATS didn't have enough already.

WHEN?
WHEN?
When are we going to get to the point where MOST of us realize that labels that are used by corporate "news" media mean nothing?
I have seen politicians being called "conservative" when they are anything BUT. Of course "conservative" politicians will LABEL the Liberals. It is a sham.
Neocon is not a label that, as I recall, was invented by the corporate media. So, for a while, it may actually mean something. Let's be careful with the label, and make sure it fits. I believe we have Neocons here, but to call them conservatives is playing the disinfo game that is played against us BY Neocons.
Next, we will have "Independents" that are actually Neocons. (Probably already in the works.), and corporate media will run with it
So, if you dare call yourself Independent...watch out, your next.

reply to post by adifferentbreed

Once again we have someone who regurgitates party manta before reading and understanding context.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


As well as mine, 2 more months and you'll be back in class no?
Ah well, the hypocrasy continues.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Hypocrisy? Have you read any of my threads/posts or even dared to ask if I am in school still?

No, you assumed. You also assumed that I am a liberal, wrong again.

It would be wise to figure out the truth before you kick out the predesignated response that you have been programmed to reply with. You might just be wrong.....and who wants to be wrong?

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Sheepslayer247, can't the invasion of ATS be better defined, as follows ?

That ATS has been invaded by party hacks who, with calculated deliberation, deface the beautiful canvas ATS provides simply to further the traditional Rep v Dem election battle ? That this has been going on for years, has been tolerated by management under the guise of "clicks make money" and that it's so changing the character of ATS that many contributors (especially those overseas) just cannot stomach the thought of another year on the ATS US Presidential election merry-go-round ?

Are you, perhaps, one of the invaders ?

reply to post by Niall197


That's actually a very good description! Couldn't have said it better myself.

I believe where I am different than a typical party drone is that I am willing to listen to the facts and deviate from any preconceived notions that I may have in favor of the truth and honest discussion.

If I were a hardcore liberal or NeoCon this response would have been irrelevant and defensive; probably resorting to some sort of name calling or questioning your intelligence! That's the difference. I am not bound by mantra or party propaganda. I am not here to push an agenda, just point out the shenanigans.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

The Invasion of ATS

Of course, I am talking about the invasion of the NeoCons! On a website in which distrust of politics and politicians used to be the norm, we now have a group that agrees with the premise that politicians are inherently deceitful, that they cannot be trusted and have no knowledge of the constitution......unless that politician is a conservative Republican! A Republican can do no wrong in the eyes of a NeoCon robot.

We are not allowed to hold an opinion that differs from the Republican talking points as it automatically causes the NeoCons to label us "Obama-lovers" and the like.

Wiki Neocon Definition

Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, explained:[20] Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.

Been a member for 8 years and have seen a lot of this type posting which really has not one shred of factual evidence to back it up other than political disagreement. Couching sour intellectual grapes in the cloth of "we're being invaded" followed by labeling wrongly those that disagree with certain view points shows a particular disconnect with reality.

I myself have never ever been a Democrat and have not ever considered being one so no "NEO" label applies, I am too old to be one of the "younger" adherents to have "intellectual inheritance" but I can only guess at how many times that label was thrown my way for having a contrary conservative view which is very offensive to me.

I could also complain as I refrained from posting nearly three years after it seemed "Obamabots" had taken over the board - instead of making a fool of myself with a posting about "invasions" I just backed off until the easily predictable performance of "O" became apparent to more and more here on the board as the "kool-aid" ran low in 10'

Just remember by definition NEOCON ideology comes from the left not the right.

You know IMHO its OK to point out if someone is espousing conservative, communist, socialist or anarchist ideals etc. because sometimes it is relevant to the discussion at hand however bandying about known derogatory terms such as "tea-bagger" "neocon" "sheep" "commie" "lefty" etc. as a personal attack is something that belongs more appropriately on Democrat Underground or Freerepublic - if its not in you to debate without resorting to name calling then one of those places may be more satisfactory.



Keep your facts straight and I'll be happy

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Well, I accept what you say and have no reason to doubt you.

But ... and I say this with the utmost affection ... I've seen no evidence in these three pages that you're any less forthright in your own opinions than those you criticise. Nor that you're any more reflective in your deliberations than your opponents here today, despite your protestations to the contrary.

For the record, I see no evidence of a NeoCon invasion on ATS. I only see confused & disaffected Democrats who don't know where to turn & who have long since given up defending the current administration. Perhaps their reticence gives those few NeoCons here the whip hand ; I don't know.

Either way, I think the claims you make in your OP are simply flamboyant labels on some old & empty luggage. Unless you can prove otherwise, of course

good post,,

post was well written!
But honestly, what's the difference anymore?

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I agree on the premise that you recognize the vast difference between an actual Conservative and a NeoCon. A NeoCon is nothing more than a big government Republican hell bent on perpetuating the Military Industrial Complex as a means of continuing American imperialism throughout the world, in the name of "freedom" and democracy of course. I am a conservative libertarian, and I despise NeoCons almost as much as I do progressives.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


You have completely wrongly characterized the original intent of ATS. It originally was to expose false conspiracies and confirm real ones with real evidence. You want it to be yet another Progressive site that engages in lies for political reasons. Nice try but no cigar. ATS was not supposed to be a platform for any political point of view, let alone anarchists and partisans.

Yes we are being invaded, only it's by partisans, anarchists and haters of all ilks, including religion haters, race haters and apologists for them.

Might I suggest The Koss, Media Matters, Fox News, CBS News, MSNBC, NBC News, ABC News, all the print media and most of Talk Radio. There are plenty of Boards for partisans and radicals who don't want to associate with people who don't agree with them. The Internet is crawling with those sites. Many will let you lie and fabricate anything you want unopposed.

You also appear to want to limit speech to those and only those you agree with. Why are you opposed to Free Speech and why does it scare you so much? I know why it scares the media and corrupt politicians and partisans, but it should be of utmost importance to people who post here. I anxiously await your explanation of your opposition to Free Speech and how you defend your obvious desire it be limited to those you agree with. Or did you purchase ATS and I missed it?

reply to post by Phoenix

Welcome to the discussion.

Here is the definition of NeoCon from the link you provided:

Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American Conservatism that is most known for its advocacy of using American economic and military power to promote liberal democracy in other countries. The movement emerged during the early 1970s among Democrats who disagreed with the party's growing opposition to the Vietnam War and had become skeptical of the Great Society's welfare programs. Although neoconservatives generally endorse free-market economics, they often believe cultural and moral issues to be more significant, and so have tended to be less thoroughgoing in opposition to government intervention in society than more traditionally conservative and libertarian members of the Republican Party.[1][2]

Sounds pretty close to me, but lets cotinue down the page and look at another quote from Mr. Michael Lind whom you quoted above.

For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order... In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it.

He surely had a unique, yet applicable view of conservatism that fits into the present situation.

Regardless of the roots of the word, we all know the definition within our current political structure. So I disagree with the assertion that I used the word in any way other than that which is acceptable in modern terms.

instead of making a fool of myself with a posting about "invasions" I just backed off until the easily predictable performance of "O" became apparent to more and more here on the board as the "kool-aid" ran low in 10'

I have no problem making a fool out of myself, if that's what this thread is doing. I am not one to sit around and wait. We each have our own approach to how tackle issues. I hit them head on and I like to spark a spirited debate. I do not wait around a hope for the environment to clear so I can avoid confrontation with those I disagree with.

"tea-bagger" "neocon" "sheep" "commie" "lefty" etc. as a personal attack

NeoCon is out of place in this list don't you think?

if its not in you to debate without resorting to name calling then one of those places may be more satisfactory.

Let me answer this by quoting you earlier in your post............

Couching sour intellectual grapes in the cloth of "we're being invaded" followed by labeling wrongly those that disagree with certain view points shows a particular disconnect with reality.

I don't believe that I used a derogatory term or called anyone a name. Am I guilty of labeling, Yes. I admit that. But I do believe it bad judgment to question my "connection" with reality because of my choice of words or used a word that you have a disagreement of definition.

In other words, are you any better when you pick and choose definitions and then call me delusional? And why can't any of you get it through your head that I am not a Dem? So why would I even want to contribute to the Democrat Underground or Freerepublic?

I think it's best that you re-read my OP, read the thread and then check out my other threads to see what I am about before you yourself "call names" or intentionally misinterpret my intentions.

reply to post by Niall197

I've seen no evidence in these three pages that you're any less forthright in your own opinions than those you criticise.

I have never asked anyone to not assert their opinion at all. People are free to say what they wish, as are you or I.

Nor that you're any more reflective in your deliberations than your opponents here today, despite your protestations to the contrary.

I disagree. I believe that I am open, honest and willing to change my philosophy at any time given the proper evidence. Do you think a hardcore birther or anti-Obama NeoCon is willing to do the same? That's the difference.

no evidence of a NeoCon invasion on ATS

If you would kindly visit a birther or Obama thread I bet you will find more than you desire. They speak for themselves.

reply to post by Blaine91555

You have completely wrongly characterized the original intent of ATS

I never said anything about the "original intent" of ATS. My words were examples of the current state of affairs and not once did I implicate that ATS was part of the problem. Do I think this current issue presents a problem for the continuance and integrity of the scientific process on ATS? Yes!

You want it to be yet another Progressive site that engages in lies for political reasons.

Did I say that? Don't think I did! You wouldn't be putting words in my mouth for your own political reasons now would you?

Might I suggest The Koss, Media Matters, Fox News, CBS News, MSNBC, NBC News, ABC News, all the print media and most of Talk Radio.

Pure partisan hacks, I agree with you. They are actually part of the problem that I described in the OP. Thanks.

You also appear to want to limit speech to those and only those you agree with. Why are you opposed to Free Speech and why does it scare you so much?

Once again you assume and attempt to put words in my mouth. This is a tactic I specifically described as one of the tactics used by NeoCons to polarize a conversation and take the attention away from the issue itself and turn it onto the individual. Thanks again!

I anxiously await your explanation of your opposition to Free Speech and how you defend your obvious desire it be limited to those you agree with.

I am not one to fall for this tactic, but I suppose I must oblige. Can you show me one instance where I specifically said that NeoCons DO NOT have the right to post on ATS? Actually, I took a different approach and I will share that quote now:

We must ask that our T&C be properly enforced in regards to political baiting and trolling. We must bombard this movement with intelligent and truthful information and not allow one political spectrum to overrun our forums and our reputation.

How dare I ask that we hit this issue head on with facts and intelligence? How dare I? I could have said..."Mods, ATS....please take away their rights to free speech and ban them forever!". But I didn't. I think my approach maintained free speech and at the same time promoted the continuing debate on ATS. I even stated that not ONE single political spectrum should overrun ATS, as I feel the NeoCons are.

I don't know how else I can put it. The words speak for themselves. How you interpret it is on your shoulders.

Over, over quoting is har to follow for other member by its very structure but I feel I must answer your disinformation.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Phoenix

 

Welcome to the discussion.

Here is the definition of NeoCon from the link you provided:

Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American Conservatism that is most known for its advocacy of using American economic and military power to promote liberal democracy in other countries. The movement emerged during the early 1970s among Democrats who disagreed with the party's growing opposition to the Vietnam War and had become skeptical of the Great Society's welfare programs. Although neoconservatives generally endorse free-market economics, they often believe cultural and moral issues to be more significant, and so have tended to be less thoroughgoing in opposition to government intervention in society than more traditionally conservative and libertarian members of the Republican Party.[1][2]

Sounds pretty close to me, but lets cotinue down the page and look at another quote from Mr. Michael Lind whom you quoted above.

Yup - They did indeed promote a policy of defense against perceived communism and at the same time promoted those very polices domestically - what did you expect they originated on the left.

For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order... In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it.

Yup- its called a need to control, another leftist policy that's seemingly promoted as "good for you"

He surely had a unique, yet applicable view of conservatism that fits into the present situation.

Regardless of the roots of the word, we all know the definition within our current political structure. So I disagree with the assertion that I used the word in any way other than that which is acceptable in modern terms.

Nope I think you used the word as a derogatory term to stifle discourse.

instead of making a fool of myself with a posting about "invasions" I just backed off until the easily predictable performance of "O" became apparent to more and more here on the board as the "kool-aid" ran low in 10'

I have no problem making a fool out of myself, if that's what this thread is doing. I am not one to sit around and wait. We each have our own approach to how tackle issues. I hit them head on and I like to spark a spirited debate. I do not wait around a hope for the environment to clear so I can avoid confrontation with those I disagree with.

The site was over-run at the time and it just was not worth trying to convince those who would listen to no sense at all..

"tea-bagger" "neocon" "sheep" "commie" "lefty" etc. as a personal attack

NeoCon is out of place in this list don't you think?

Nope, its fair.

if its not in you to debate without resorting to name calling then one of those places may be more satisfactory.

Let me answer this by quoting you earlier in your post............

Couching sour intellectual grapes in the cloth of "we're being invaded" followed by labeling wrongly those that disagree with certain view points shows a particular disconnect with reality.

Yup I stand by that statement, its obvious as all get out.

I don't believe that I used a derogatory term or called anyone a name. Am I guilty of labeling, Yes. I admit that. But I do believe it bad judgment to question my "connection" with reality because of my choice of words or used a word that you have a disagreement of definition.

In other words, are you any better when you pick and choose definitions and then call me delusional? And why can't any of you get it through your head that I am not a Dem? So why would I even want to contribute to the Democrat Underground or Freerepublic?

Well if you are going to call folks who vehemently disagree with your politics neocons then get ready for flames because you have brought it upon yourself for first labeling rather than debating.

I think it's best that you re-read my OP, read the thread and then check out my other threads to see what I am about before you yourself "call names" or intentionally misinterpret my intentions.

edit on 14-6-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: grammar

No your post stands alone for its inherent bias

reply to post by Phoenix

Wow....so not only did you skirt around my specific points, you managed to get a "communism" and "leftist" in there. Good job!

Yup I stand by that statement, its obvious as all get out.

Yes it is. I appreciate your addition to the thread and I am glad that you were able to solidify my assertion just that much more.

Thanks!

it was only a matter of time..

The only difference I see between Republicans and Democrats on ATS is one group believes in certain agendas and the other is a cult of personality.
Unfortunately neither party seems to represent what is best for all Americans.

If you think neocons are everywhere I'd put most of the blame on FOX.
It's as close to a bible as a TV station can get for some.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Yawn-shouldn't this be in the "Rant" forum?
Sour grapes because The Anointed One is failing miserably and your brain just can't process it.....