| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/29 |
| 2005/2/8-9 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Ilyas, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:36107 Activity:very high |
2/8 Today's stale, boring-ass motd brought to you by the csua moral
majority. Good work, guys.
\_ Hey, at least I contributed by repeatedly insulting stupid
Christians. What have YOU done to make the motd more entertaining
today? -- ilyas
\_ huh? your silliness was exposed, and then you deleted the
whole thread to cover it up, and that's the smartest thing
you did today.
\_ It was? I did? -- ilyas
\_ "Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than
to speak and remove all doubt." -Abraham Lincoln
\_ your reasoning went like this: "there are gays animals,
so some humans must be genetically gay". If you can't
see how silly that is, I don't know what to say.
\_ This is amazing. I didn't know people like you
actually existed here. I am not sure how I feel
about that. -- ilyas
\_ heh, this coming from someone who keep calling
people stupid.
\_ What's stupid about that? Are you saying all human
homosexuals are so by choice? Are you saying that
no animals are gay (I guess homosexual for animals
isn't proper usage)? Tell us, Lassie! -John
\_ huh? it's pretty obvious what I've said and
have not said. just read. Ilya's reasoning
is silly because it is like, "there are
cannibals in the animal world. Jeffrey
Dahmer ate people. Thus cannbalism must be
genetic for Jeffrey Dahlmer."
\_ Obviously I wasn't talking about you. You know who I'm talking
about (the stupid Christians).
\_ why do you hate Christian, oh so wise Israelyas?
\_ Not all Christians are stupid. I'll assume he was only
talking about the stupid ones. --intelligent Xian
\_ Dude, I give ilyas as hard a time as the next guy, but
what's with all the ilyas is jewish talk? What are you
getting at?
\_ I am an evil neocon! -- ilyas
\_ Right. You realize you're one of the few who
equates being Jewish with being a Neocon, right?
\_ Boy, nothing gets by you, does it. Not even my
sarcasm. I don't equate the word 'neocon' with
anything. It's a non-word. A non-concept. It's
a label that sounds vaguely negative, used for
political ends. It is devoud of content. -- ilyas
\_ I think you mean me when you said "you". That
wasn't me. I normally grok sarcasm and I
normally sign my posts. To quote yourself, "Meh"
-- ulysses
\_ I didn't think it was you. -- ilyas
\_ Oh. Well. I'll just wander off now... -- u
\_ Irving Kristol (Bill Kristol's father) uses
this word to describe the political philosophy
he had a hand in creating. I think the
term is not incoherent (Orwell, forgive me).
http://csua.org/u/40g - ciyer
\_ Perhaps as used by Irving Kristol the word is
not incoherent. It is fairly incoherent as
used by most soda denisens and contributers to
wikipedia. -- ilyas
\_ "I am neither russian nor jewish. -- ilyas" KAIS MOTD 35389:6
\_ I'm both! And I'm a fat black woman named Frieda! -John
\_ Sorry, I have been busy working. -motd thought leader |
| 5/29 |
|
| csua.org/u/40g -> www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp News & World Report, August 11, 2003 WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM? Journalists, and now even presidential candidates, speak with an enviable confidence on who or what is "neoconservative," and seem to assume the meaning is fully revealed in the name. Those of us who are designated as "neocons" are amused, flattered, or dismissive, depending on the context. Even I, frequently referred to as the "godfather" of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect. Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies. Due to this limitation, you may experience unexpected results within this site. |