5 votes

Liberals are more tyrannical than Neocons

Having interacting with large numbers of both groups I came to this conclusion. When I point out the hypocrisies of Liberals, they get vicious and nasty and attack you for it. Am I the only one who sees this?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Both parties are bullies when

Both parties are bullies when they feel empowered.
When members of a party feel vulnerable, they assume the posture of the blameless victim and point out the intolerance of the other.
Polarization is the beauty of the parties system.

I think that way sometimes, but...

You're assuming they are actually liberals and not statists who call themselves liberals because they are using the left-right political spectrum instead of our 2-dimentional political compass. Complete liberals, like complete conservatives, are sort of halfway libertarian, just in opposite ways.

I agree with that until I hear conservatives talking about immigration, war/military, gay marriage, drugs, and other people, lifestyles, and behaviors they don't approve of.

Neocons

Not the neocon intelligentsia, but the followers, including most media neocon (alternative web, not the newsrags), aren't strictly neocon. That's the first thing to keep in mind.

'Neocons' are complicated, like Mark Levin, because they have this firm sense of republican government and liberty, but are also sort of big tools.

Some liberals are okay because they just want gays to be married, and that sort of thing.

However, I'd say liberals are far worse than neocons. The reason why is structural.

Neocons may want to bomb somewhere, and their logic may be influenced by rotten media - but more or less the individual neocon has a grasp of the argument and consents to the agenda even if the logic is terrible.

Liberals, on the other hand, would have others make decisions. They would place control into the hands of others.

Yeah, neocons 'trust' Bush on the Patriot Act, but that's more a matter of "well we don't trust the government per se, but the muslims are so scary we have to take this risk". Again, personal consent after personal evaluation of policy.

Liberals are like: "Don't trust Bush! Instead, let the UN handle it! Bush is too close to the opinions and perspectives of actual citizens."

See the difference?

It's also apparent on economic issues. Economics, whatever you have to say about it, is all about your perspective on authority in society. Do individuals have freedom, or do we live serve some system greater than ourselves? Economics is nothing more than your life and livelihood.

Again, neocons demand the illusion of personal freedom. Liberals demand only the right to bitch at the town hall meeting but then go on to happily accept whatever mandates are handed down.

The neocons were calling

The neocons were calling people opposed to the War in Iraq "traitors". Theyre equally bad.

Ventura 2012

Yeah but Liberals are doing

Yeah but Liberals are doing far worse domestically than the Neocons did.

The Neocons did far worse

The Neocons did far worse domestically than the Clinton liberals did. Its not causation its just getting chronologically worse.

Ventura 2012

Clinton liberals could of

Clinton liberals could of done far worse if it wasn't for the Republican house to stop them. You have to know that the Iraq war was in the plans under the Clinton administration.

You're really making my point

You're really making my point for me, because as soon as Clinton left that same Republican Congress did a 180 and flushed our economy and Constitution down the toilet. My point is simply that its all a big scam and the government is by and large doing what it wants to do under the false veneer of two parties and two ideologies.

Ventura 2012

Yes, essentially that's what

Yes, essentially that's what it boils down to. We have mob rule just what Jefferson warned against. There are hypocrites in both parties, but it seems more so with liberals. By looking at history, Liberals have got the U.S. Involved in more wars than the Conservatives. Ex. ( Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Clinton, and now Obama) I would also put Lincoln in that category since he was considered a liberal in his time.

Just Getting Chronologically Worse

When Obama expanded the wars and Patriot Act, I realized something was amiss. I finally realized that indeed things are getting chronologically worse (that's why we all knew that Romney would be a monster).

I'm sure that Ron Paul experienced the same thing when Reagan increased the size of government as he did.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Depends on the issue

Both are largely interchangeable to me, but yeah, there are a few differences.

(Neo)libs tend to blow up when you point how racist many of them are, with the way they treat non-Whites like perpetual infants (except "Asians", who don't make up a large enough voting block to exploit).

Neocons typically seem to not like discussing FP in general, but it's mostly the Israel-first crowd that gets riled up over it. Convincing these folks that Israel is anything but flawless is *very* difficult, because so many base it around a religious upbringing.

Neolibs also tend to be extremely patronizing and elitist, while Neocons tend to believe that everyone (except (R) politicians, of course) is out to get them.

The main issue with both, to me, is that both groups often substitute facts for emotional rhetoric, and it's very difficult to get someone like that to ever admit they were wrong. Too much pride, I guess.

edit: typo

A signature used to be here!

I agree with a lot of what

I agree with a lot of what you said. Neocons seem to be less aggressive to me and cut throat.

They were attacking me on

They were attacking me on facebook by the way.