Can you tell a NEOCON just by looking at them?

[wadestock]

I can.

My wife challenged me to this during our State Fair recently and I came up 8 for 8 and then she said...OK...enough is enough....stop embarrassing me...

Things to look for....

1. That condescending "business man" look - I've told a couple people in the office that the way to "move up the ladder" was to first avoid the riff raff but to also walk up and down the halls with your eyes "focused forward".....as if you are "above it all". Don't get involved in any "simple conversations". Only talk to the boss types and act as if you're hanging on every word they say. Of course I also told the guy to make sure he dressed it up every day and to stand in front of the building on the hottest day of the year with his 3 piece suit on so management would notice. Pretty soon he was doing the "stare of excellence" and I'd give him a thumbs up every time he went by my desk. PS - he did get a promotion.

2. That Stern F You look - The type of look someone might give you just before a fight, could be also called the "chip on your shoulder" type of look.

3. The "greater than thou" look - Includes the typical stance of the puffed out chest, could also be a walk which seems to say "look at me, I'm god's gift to humanity". Also symptomatic of the type of person that is completely in love with themselves and only cares about themselves. You know the type.


By contrast....I can see a dem or progressive person a mile away.....characteristics being....

1. Kind eyes....showing a thoughtfulness of what's going on.
2. Face not tight, face is more expressive....showing the ability to be comfortable with oneself.
3. Demeanor is one which is sociable, friendly, willing to laugh at oneself, almost playful as opposed to the above stereotype.

People, the face of America is changing.
You will see more and more of the people around you uptight and drifting into the "F-You" mode. Call it 911, call it a general hopelessness....call it what you like, but the country at large is sucking up the hatred that the neocons love to see people fall into.

The hatred is leading to "mindlessness"....and a general clammy, almost paranoid behavior.

I don't know how many people come up to me....more and more saying....geeze it's just not like the way it used to be....people just don't get together like they used to. I say to them, it's not just you....it's happening to everyone.

Bye Bye Miss American Pie.....thanks to Limbaugh and the Neocons....

I appreciate Kerry and his vision of "hope"....but what I see in people's faces is a lack of hope. Only time will tell....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. hair styles are a dead giveaway too

if someone has a very tight, plastic hair style, or one that is kind of a throwback to the 50's business man, they're likely a neo con.

Meanwhile, people that have more stylish hair, or don't feel the need to plaster it down, they're likely dems.

[jay-3d]

5. i don't have hair

[alittlelark]

11. Women who always have their hair curled, and are wearing

a lot of make-up are also, in my experience Neo-cons.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Now that economic opportunities are getting more scarce

the only way to just keep your head above water is to be an unprincipled, greedy fuck.

BTW, Bush voters are not necessarily ideological neocons. Most of them don't have a CLUE what the Bush cabal's neocon foreign and domestic policy objetives are (thanks, big media!). They just want their tax cuts, or their religious morality cast into law.

[Wheelie_Alex]

3. Well, I can spot a sportbike or Harley rider in crowd! n/t

[iconoclastic cat]

4. Holy crap! That's my dad!

Seriously! And he is a big huge fundie, too.

[whistle]

6. Sounds like eugenics theory....

...where the outward physical traits and characteristics of an individual vary from person to person as a result of inherited traits (genotype) and acquired characteristics such as obesity (phenotype). Neoconservatives want people to believe that their superiority is due to the gene pool that they are a part of (genotype), but hatred, intolerance, greed, selfishness, indifference, etc. all have to be taught and acquired. I'm sure the process takes a toll by changing a person's outward appearance as well as their inner soul. Evil is not always easy to spot when taking a first glance, but over time and repeated contacts evil becomes known both by acts and appearances.

Unconditional love by contrast makes for a beautiful body and a pure soul IMHO.

[Carson]

7. Yeah, and phrenology

is a valid science.

[barb162]

24. look at Cheney

[bacchant]

8. You can't judge a book... But

There is, more often than not, a look and vibe to these folks. You might call it "straight laced". Many of the conservatives I work with do adhere to some of wadestock's characteristics. If you doubt the republican desire to be part of a visibly identifiable group, think blue suits and american flag lapel pins.

[wadestock]

10. The latest craze....the yellow ribbons they adorn....

Don't know if a manufacturer recently got the idea for the stick on magnetic yellow ribbon...but they've been catching on like hot cakes in our area in Jersey.....and a few of the obvious phonies in the office have been the "first on the block" to stick them on their car.

Well I asked one of them....in what way does the purchase price of 1.50 support our troops....do you know?......

They love their hollow statements don't they....

[PatriotGames]

40. Where ar eyou in Jersey? I see them all over my part!

[Cocoa]

9. no

of course not.

[Surf Cowboy]

12. Look for the sloping, protruding forehead

and the knuckles dragging shortly behind the hairy feet. Often seen dragging hairy female with left hand while holding large wooden club with right.

[wadestock]

13. That would be BUSH!!!! with the exception....

he's upgraded the technology to have a remote control stepford wife.

[DebinTx]

14. And don't forget

the people who dress themselves in bibbed overalls, they've got their blue suit on underneath.

[Endangered Specie]

15. I have several criteria for determining political orientation...

and Im about 80-90% right.

[HamdenRice]

16. I think you are confusing neocon...

with simply conservative or right wing. Neo con is a very specific and relatively small group of intellectuals. It's important to understand who they are and how they hijacked certain parts of governmental policy. For example, Rush is not a neocon, although he may promote or sympathize with them.

Here's a start at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2231573

[William Bloode]

17. Bullcrap!

If most of you folks were to see me, by those descriptions i would automatically be labeled a Neocon.

It never a good idea to generalize folks like that, comes damn close to the same idea as racial profiling.

>>edit for spelling<<

[alittlelark]

18. You can't choose your race - you CAN

choose your outlook on the world, your hairstyle, your clothes.......

[Selwynn]

26. What the FUCK does hairstyle and clothes have to do with ANYTHING?

[alittlelark]

29. My, a bit testy are we?

[Selwynn]

32. If you think this is testy...

..wait until I get any other answer besides, "you're right - that was stupid, there is no conservative or liberal "hairstyle" or "clothing." I must have been half brain dead this morning, but I realize how stupid that is now. Thanks for setting me straight."

:D

No, I'm not testy. I'm blunt.

[alittlelark]

33. This Sunday, go to your local Fundamentalist Church

watch the people as they are entering or exiting. Observe the hair and make-up. Then look at some of the protest pictures you have seen, or think of a protest you have been to.

Compare them - then you can rant to whatever degree you wish.

The original poster mixed up Neo-con, and conservative.....but, so what? No reason to freak.

[wadestock]

39. Appreciate the comment.....

but there is no real mixup here.....

Limbaugh would have you believe that he and his ditto head following are conservatives....but they are NOT.

He is completely part of and they are followers of the neoconservative movement.

In ideology in terms of using power for their gain and spread of their ideology around the world.... they have a close cousin in the right wing Christian reconstructionists....

[Selwynn]

42. It has zero to do with a mix up between neo-con and conservative

It has to do with the fact that looking at someone's hair cut or their clothes will NEVER - EVER - prove to you what their political beliefs are.

Oh sure, you may decide to embrace the same ignorant narrow-minded stereo-typical hastily generalized thinking that others do, but the fact remains is that there are so many short-haired, straight laced, grumpy democrats that trying to act as thought hair or clothes are a good indicator of ANYTHING is silly and tragically misguided.

[jdj]

51. Yes it does. Quite often.

[Selwynn]

56. No it doesn't. Ever.

What said above is, the problem in this whole thread is not that there is a "mix up" between politically conservative and politically neo-conservative, as though ridiculous stereotypes would be ok if one or the other was specified. The problem in this thread is the asinine notion that you can tell by physical indicators what ones political beliefs are.

That is something that will be frequently untrue, so much so that it has no worth, other that to exist as a thoughtless unreflective stereotype. You can see my post below to see the areas where I AGREE with the original poster. However, the idea that clothing or hairstyle is any clear and obvious indicator of anything is easily refutable via direct example.

[jdj]

59. Honeychild, what planet do you live on?

We make decisions daily, if not hourly, based on the appearance of the people we are surrounded by.

If we didn't do this, we never would have evolved from tadpoles, or we wouldn't have made it out of the trees as chimpanzees.

Our thought processes are more complex now than just being able to tell the food from the danger from the booty from the bulliable, but we have to make these inferences for our own well-being, not to mention for our self-interest, manipulation, etc.

I live in the south, where it's alot more obvious than in other parts of the U.S., but nonetheless, it's a fact.

[Selwynn]

61. It is most decidedly not a fact

..that you can tell with absolute certainty the political affiliation of a person based on their looks.

The fact that we make decisions daily based on appearance is irrelevant to this issue. The issue is, you cannot tell with certainty the political affiliation of anyone simply by looking at them. The "tell tale" signs given to pick out a non-democrat in the original post all fit the description of my friend, a democrat, as well as many other democrats I know.

You do indeed have to make inferences, but when you make them from logically unsound premises, or from the position of unrecognized bias, that don't contribute to well-being - they work against it.

[jdj]

62. I went back to the original thread to see if the OP ever

claimed "absolute certainty". I didn't find that claim, but I did find this:

People, the face of America is changing.
You will see more and more of the people around you uptight and drifting into the "F-You" mode. Call it 911, call it a general hopelessness....call it what you like, but the country at large is sucking up the hatred that the neocons love to see people fall into."

At least you proved him/her right in one aspect.

[HamdenRice]

63. Neither of you folks ...

seem to have the slightest clue about what a neo-conservative actually is -- so the entire issue of whether you can spot one is irrelevant.

Even if you grant that a neo-con could be spotted, your view of what they are is totally wrong.

Sorry to be blunt, but it is a very important topic and you should try to educate yourselves about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2231573

[jdj]

64. To think just a minute ago you were agreeing with me...

jdjkkse (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-18-04 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #19

50. this way: the neo-cons are the brains behind this garbage on


the news, and the "conservatives", "republicans" whatever, who are in office, are the dumb fucks they are manipulating.


Alert Printer Friendly | Edit | Reply | Top



What changed????

on edit, here's you:

HamdenRice (226 posts) Wed Aug-18-04 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #50

52. That's exactly as I see it.


And that's why they are so dangerous and anti-democratic. The leader of the Straussian sub-cult of neo-cons actually believe that they should not hold top offices, but whisper in the ear of powerful officials, and lie to their own superiors if necessary to get their polices implemented.

Their own writings suggest that they have played Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice for fools, on purpose.


Forgive me, I get it, I'm just trying to loosen Seylwynn up and get her/him off Wadestock's back

[HamdenRice]

65. Looking back,

I think I was referring to Selwyn and littleark -- sorry for the misunderstanding.

But I do think it's really important to understand exactly who the neo-cons are, and there isn't a lot of that in this thread.

[Selwynn]

68. And again, I've never stated what I think a neo-con is, so...

.. your claim that I have no idea what one is happens to be based on absolutely nothing.

[jdj]

69. You are seriously, dangerously correct.

The single most dangerous and sometimes fatal error dems make is refusing to accept that there is a highly intelligent group of evil-doers behind every "conservative" party, whose chief aim is to manipulate joe public into acting against his own best interest in every way possible.

It's my pet theory that this is why so much sexual marketing is foisted on teenagers, because the sorcerors of squalor want kids to reproduce young and trap themselves in poverty permanently, so that they become fodder for keeping the rich rich. That's the whole argument behind the anti-abortion push, too.

These guys are so good that even stauch conservatives think it is God behind that curtain instead of old man Oz and his neo-con buddies.

[alittlelark]

91. Thank You, from my perch

prior to sleep.

[Selwynn]

67. I've never stated what I think a neo-con is, not one time..

..so your opinion of my "distorted view" is baseless.

[Selwynn]

41. Give me a fucking break. This Sunday...

I'll go to my best friends house, then visit my parents, then visit my three other friends, then go town sit at my favorite coffee shop and observe the "hair" and "make-up."

And guess what, every stereotypical bullshit observation you can make, I can make to -- only my best friend happens to be radically liberal, my parents happen to not be conservative, my three other friends happen to be strongly progressive, and many of the people I socialize with regularly at the coffee shop, all straight laced, short haired clean cut people - have also describe themselves as democrats.

It has nothing to do with mixing up "neo-con" and "conservative." It happens to do with the obvious truism that how you cut your fucking hair or what clothes you fucking by has no necessary connection to your political views! For every confirmation you provide for your assumption, I can provide a falsification of the same claim through direct, concrete specific example.

The claim is ridiculous. That is not an opinion. That is a matter of observable, tangible, provable fact.

[jdj]

49. Do you ever take a stand on anything truly significant??

Or do you just try to bully people who pursue more philosophical topics.

Oh, and hairspray is a dead giveaway, on men especially.

[Selwynn]

53. I use hair spray, and that is the stupidest comment I've ever heard.

Whether I take stands one things YOU deem significant or not is completely irrelevant the fact that ridiculous generalizations like this are wholly unsupportable in every way, shape or form.

I happen to feel that being intellectually responsible, and rationally honest while demonstrating at least some degree of reflective thinking is in fact, "significant."

[jdj]

55. In other words

"everything everyone else says is stupid and wrong. everything I say is rational and right." Or something.

Maybe you should cut back on the hairspray, Selwynn.

[Selwynn]

57. No, in other words

sweeping generalizations that can be easily rebuffed via direct example are always wrong, and no matter how many personal attacks totally irrelevant to any premise you shoot my way they will remain wrong. Why? Not because I say so, but because anyone can demonstrate them false via direct evidentially example. Case closed.

[jdj]

60. Haven't you ever heard the expression,

"the exception proves the rule"?

You're pointing out exceptions doesn't prove there isn't a rule, instead it makes more clear the veracity (I threw that one in for you, I see how you like them big words) of the rule.

I'm not particulary attached to the outcome of this debate either way, I just wanted to distract you because you are being a rather ungracious du host/hostess slinging all these F-words around over such a trivial matter. Thanks for taking the bait.

[Selwynn]

66. Wrong again

Pointing out exceptions to a absolute rule claim does indeed disprove an absolute rule. Pointing out exceptions to a non-absolute generalization does not disprove a generalization, however it does absolutely nothing to reinforce the "veracity" of it. Veracity means truthfulness - pointing out times when a rule is NOT true, doesn't disprove it, but it doesn't help prove it at all either. That's clearly demonstrable.

IF a, then B.
NOT A..

....therefore what? B? Maybe, but not supported in any way by A.

You're not particularly attached to the outcome of the "debate" because there is no debate. Triviality is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to feel that figuring out how to think rationally and not be always and forever inslaved to bias, lack of criticality an fallacious reasoning is important. I also think avoiding ridiculous stereotypes that can be proven wrong as often as they are proven right is also important.

Just like I don't say, "there's a black man, he must be a criminal" I also don't say "there's a short haired upset looking guy, he must be a republican. There is no difference in structure between those statements. Do you have a problem with the statement, "there's a black man, he must be a criminal?" Why? A lot of times black men are criminals? Oh, yeah that's right... because a lot of times they aren't and whether they ARE or AREN'T has nothing to do with their race.

The same applies here.

[jdj]

70. You are wearing EVEN ME out.

Bravo.

And I'm a cuss.

Ask my parents.

Re your analogy, it's YOUR analogy. You made those word choices. Why? What predisposed you to say black instead of white?

I've lived as a gay person in four southern states and if I didn't size folks up I'd probably be dead, and I'd definitely be destitute. You have to learn this as a queer in the South if you want to stay employed. I could probably go 8 for 8 at the county fair too, if I were this guy, but, the odds are on your side at any county fair.

[Selwynn]

73. You chose not to answer the question.

What chose me to use my analogy is that there is a common stereotype among conservatives often heard and repeated that goes, "black men = criminals." But people who are capable of critical reflection and more rational thinking know that this claim is based on numerous false foundations. Nevertheless, that stereotype remains out there.

My example of that stereotype says nothing about me, it is simply a good example because that wrong headed idea has been oft expressed by many republicans, and that wrong idea is NO DIFFERENT than the wrong idea we're discussing here.

So, if you reject that stereotype as wrong, then you must this too, because it is exactly the same. I doubt you're interested, but you can see my response below for a longer discussion on the right and wrong basis for the "judgments" we make of others. We do judge others, be we can do so in a valid and invalid way. Trying to judge one's political affiliation by hair color is an invalid way, just like trying to spot a criminal by skin color is invalid. There is just no way around that.

The question to you was, do you agree with this reasoning, "there is a black man, he must be a criminal?" Or do you think that perhaps the BASIS for that particular evaluation of another person was incorrect?

[jdj]

74. Answer. No, I don't agree with your reasoning.

About black men being criminals, or about anything else you've said here.

I don't call it reasoning, either. I call it masturbation.

[Selwynn]

77. Ok, then - contining irrelevant personal attacks aside,

the fact remains that if you don't agree with that statement, then it follows that you wouldn't agree with the statement, "hey, there goes a guy with short hair, he must be a republican" either.

[jdj]

79. No one ever said short-haired men were republicans, except you.

It's alot more complicated than that.

[Selwynn]

81. So I take it then, you would agree that the statement would be wrong?

[jdj]

83. Selwynn, honey, get a life.

[Selwynn]

87. I'll take that as a yes.

What about "hey here comes a person of x phsyical appearance, he must be a republican?"

[jdj]

88. Yes, I don't agree. Or something.

I've re-read your last few posts, and they seem to contradict.
Not that it matters. You're in this for the arrogance and condescension, not for the logic and reason. So-called logic and reason seem to be a tool for you, kind of like a vibrator, to get you off.

I'm tired of this, so I'm going out to see my puppy-dogs, where I can have some more intelligent conversation.

[wrate]

104. You're not black by choice, your appearance is by choice. The analogy

does not work.

Although I am not certain people should be categorized based on appearance, it is true that appearance, since it is by choice, should tell you something about the person.

[wadestock]

21. I didn't leave it so shallow......

I tried to equate the "changing face of America" with this growing paranoid uptight look....that was a central theme here.....

The overall point is.....if it's THAT obvious.....you gotta believe that something is going desperately wrong here....would you buy that?

Relax....don't be so uptight....the face obviously isn't the answer....

[jdj]

54. You're next thread will be...

How do you tell a neo-con/disruptor/viral marketer on the web...

wink.wink.

[HamdenRice]

19. The more I think about your post...

the more I realize you have absolutely no idea what a neo con is. The "typical" neo con, if he has a look, is a rumpled New York intellectual, with "kind" looking eyes (not that the writing they produce really is kind), not a businessman with a stern look.

Here's a pic of Irving Kristol:



and here is one of Norman Podhoretz when he was young



and Podheretz more or less today:

http://www.booknotes.org/Program/?ProgramID=1508

Hardly a business man with a cold hard stare.

[wadestock]

20. Does today's business man = NEOCON?

You can argue definitions all you want....yes it gets complex very fast.....and yes of course most people really don't know what they really believe in....especially this type of person....

But it's a good tag for today's Repuke because of their general endorcement of today's neoconservative attitude about money and government influence in the world.

If you would generally say that Limbaugh is a NEOCON...then I've made my point....here's a man that truly reflects a morphing of Reaganomics with the "new world order" neocon mindset. I also generally believe today's NEOCON movement...as much as they can claim roots in intellectualism....has grown to enjoy using and abusing power....and especially finds itself flourishing as part of the "dumbing down" of America.....

History of Neoconservatism.....
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html
"THE OLDER CONSERVATISM....

The American conservative movement of the 1930's was a grass-roots movement in an era of the dust bowl. It had no political philosophy. It had only one large, unattainable goal: the defeat of That Man, Franklin D. Roosevelt..... The movement was nationalist, non-interventionist, and anti-New Deal. To say that it had no funding does not begin to do justice to its condition. After Pearl Harbor, it disappeared.....They raised millions of dollars from businesses who were opposed to this or that piece of regulation. As the money poured in, there was a change of perspective: 'Make government less arbitrary.' The older viewpoint received less attention: "Put the state on a near-starvation diet..... This is the background to the rise of neoconservatism.....

.... Today, the neoconservatives are in the spotlight because of the influence of William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and others associated with The Weekly Standard. Their influence is primarily in the area of foreign policy and military affairs, not economic policy. This constitutes a major shift in neoconservatism's focus. What began a generation ago as an academic protest against failed and failing bureaucratic experiments by the Federal government has shifted to a concern about expanding democracy through American military intervention, especially in the Middle East.....their assumption is that democracy will somehow not lead to theocracy. This non-theocratic transition can be accomplished, if at all, only by American military force, i.e., permanent regional presence. They are willing to pay this price, i.e., have American taxpayers and troops pay it....

....Furthermore, as their influence grew during the 1980's as a result of Reagan's victory, they hoped to get in on the action, go to Washington, take over the administration of the funds, and use them for productive purposes. They planned to do well by doing good. They have certainly done well..... The neoconservatives' take-over of the conservative movement paralleled the rise of conservative think-tanks that could tap the wallets of highly successful businessmen. When the funding of conservatism moved from developing economic theory and political theory to influencing U.S. government policy-making, the neocons arrived on the scene. So, to anyone who is planning to write a book on rise of neoconservatism, I recommend that you follow the advice of Deep Throat to Woodward and Bernstein: Follow the money.'....

... By this bog-slogging, they initially established their bona fides in the conservative movement. They gained reputations as being conservative scholars who were fully credentialed, of which there were few in 1965, and also as realistic critics of the Federal government's economic operations. This gained them access to, and eventually dominant influence over, the main distribution centers of money in the conservative movement: policy think-tanks inside the Washington Beltway. They followed the money as a man with a destination follows a compass: to identify the sources of influence. By 1980, rich men within their circles began to supply a lot of it....."

[Selwynn]

28. no, and its an insult to democratic business peoeple to say so.

[wadestock]

35. I'd be insulting way more Neocons....

The democrats and progressive thinkers are an ever shrinking minority in the business world.

If we had more democrats in key industries and positions of power in the business world....I bet we'd be a lot better off...but that's not the case. Unfortunately the trend has been to replace these "thinking-feeling" types with neocons because they are more focused on "what really matters". They can perform the heartless moves that are more and more required today. The money is too lucrative, too tempting, and the abuse of power just too attractive. Neocons have intellectualized how they didn't want government power....but ironically they have become part of the worse aspect of and evolution of our business world into the toilet. Those who follow the neocon movement generally love the abuse of power...so they naturally fit in today's business world....and they are being recruited more and more everyday.

Example one - Defense industry and subsidiaries are an enormous industry....all have taken on a neocon slant since the early 80s.....

The "corrupt component" of business - is becoming the dominant component....with business outsourcing, etc....affects many big businesses and is highly insidious....has become hung up on money, growth, world spread ....all basic tenets of the "new Neoconservative movement" we face today.

Dis-empowerment of the American worker - Becoming more and more endorsed by today's management. There is a general move away from Total Quality and working for the common man as truly an integral part of the success of business. People today are viewed as commodities more and more....not PEOPLE in the workplace. Ironically, "human resources" is more in tune with "cattle ranching" than text book human resource management.

The worker is becoming increasingly expendable and this is clearly evidenced by phasing out benefits and retirement. Total Quality is one in which people are truly empowered and not threatened in the workplace. The trend today is actually the other way....although companies will talk total quality and team building as part of justification of management's brilliant schemes.

[Selwynn]

44. Says you, without evidence.

You are mistaking an institutional criticism with an analysis of the every day business men and women working within the system.

Arguing about whether CEO's or high level corporate executives is one thing. But that's not the same thing as arguing that the majority of white collar business workers in america are conservative or otherwise.

Show me concete data that explicitly shows that the average business worker in america in vast majority. You can't. Because this is an anectotal feeling based on no concrete evidence. I am a businessman, I work with business men and women. And I work in a "red state." And guess what, political views amoung the buisnessmen and women I work with is very mixed.

[HamdenRice]

48. PLEASE, PLEASE Understand what a Neocon is!!!!

Sorry to use all caps, but I am so worried that people on this generally thoughtful and informed board have not got the slightest clue about what the term neo-conservative means, and the precise dangers that that movement represents.

Neo-cons are not just conservatives. Rush Limbaugh is not a neo-con, and neither is Hannity, Coulter, or any of the other media pundits. The Wall Street Journal is not a neo-con editorial page, although neo-con op-eds do appear there.

Neo-cons are a very, VERY small movement of intellectuals, and they are not the broader conservative movement.

Far from being heirs of the conservative movement of the 1930s, their forbearers were Marxists, communists and especially Trotskyites during the 1930s, as I have tried to show in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2231573

The only true major neocon appointees in the Bush administration are Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Elliot Abrahms, although they have deeply influenced Rumsfeld and Cheney. In fact, the neo-cons in the Bush administration are an especially nasty sub-category of neo-cons called "Straussians" after their intellectual god-father, Leo Strauss.

You can't begin to unravel their influence (which actually spans across the Republican and Democratic Party) or how awful they are for the international standing of the US or for our democratic processes unless you actually understand their nefarious influences.

[jdj]

50. this way: the neo-cons are the brains behind this garbage on

the news, and the "conservatives", "republicans" whatever, who are in office, are the dumb fucks they are manipulating.

[HamdenRice]

52. That's exactly as I see it.

And that's why they are so dangerous and anti-democratic. The leader of the Straussian sub-cult of neo-cons actually believe that they should not hold top offices, but whisper in the ear of powerful officials, and lie to their own superiors if necessary to get their polices implemented.

Their own writings suggest that they have played Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice for fools, on purpose.

[tom_paine]

22. While I might agree with some your conclusions about the nation

The idea that you can tell people by their looks is, well, surprisingly regressive thinking.

By the way, you said you went '8 for 8'. How did you verify your results were accurate?

Did you quiz each of them? Did you share with them why you were asking?

[Selwynn]

27. Also - did you repeat your test over a diverse set of subjects many times?

How did you verify the results? This is a ridiculous notion, and I have to agree, its really disturbingly regressive in its thinking assumptions.

[wadestock]

30. Like I said....

The point is intended to be tongue and cheek and obvious.

Ask yourself this......

Is the face of our nation changing?....do you see it people's eyes or otherwise?

Yes I think it is.....it's caught in the expressions of people...that uptight look....that unwillingness to interface or "waste one's time"....it is a growing "selfish look"....

The reason is "highly correlated" with Limbaughism and the thought that by listening to him "you're above it all"....or "you know something that someone else doesn't know".

Try to get them to explain it to you...and of course they don't know the answer because they really DON'T have much of any theory behind it.....

It's more of a "feeling" or a "belief"....and you'll hear Limbaugh go on and on about that throughout his program....because it really is attitude more than anything else. It's also fundamentally founded in hatred and the overall feeling that "someone's ripping you off".

So to answer your question....yes I was at the fair and I did get into many heated battles that came close to fist fights....but the approach was real simple....

Just go up to someone that I was very confident was a Repuke and I'd say...."can you believe these f-in liberals that are hangin out by the Kerry tent"......at which point they wouldn't really say much but seem to notch up in anger and say "f-in unbelievable" or they better stay away from me with that crap....and one guy said....I know how we can solve their problem....shoot em.

And keep in mind it was the state fair with very little uptight businessman types around (too low class for them)....so it was easy pickins....

[jdj]

58. You "profile" every single person you meet every single day.

It's inherent behavior in every species.

[Selwynn]

71. Every species? Are amoebas profiling other amoebas?

If, by some amazing gift of divine hilarity you answer yes, please provide evidence to support that claim.

As far as humans are concerned - just because we make evaluations about others daily doesn't mean those evaluations are sound or valuable. They are often times counter-productive and wrong. They have a greater change of being accurate, when they are not based on obviously fallacious and irrational reasoning. Abductive inference is the process of seeing a fact and then seeking out the best explanation to account for that fact. Conjecture and Refutation is the process of falsification, the best way to test a theory, or idea - look for evidence that would disprove it...

...we make evaluative judgments daily, but some people do it with scientific rigor and rational aptitude. And those who do, don't decide that they can count on hair style or clothing to be an indicator of politics - too open to falsification and counter-example, in other words - too frequently totally utterly wrong.

[jdj]

72. "scientific rigor and rational aptitude"?

This is where I would insert one of those little pac-men that barf, if I knew how.

I can't answer about the amoebas, one way or the other. I'd ask you to provide proof they don't, but you probably can't let anything go, and might spend hours on it, coming back with a dissertation on amoeba behavior long after I have gone to bed.

Is this the way you act in real life or is this just the computer you?

[Selwynn]

76. You can do it by :puke: -- and I don't have the burden of proof...

..I'm not making the claim. I'm asking you to support your claim.

The more important part of that post is the rest that you, I guess, ignored.

How I act or talk in real life is irrelevant to the issue. But, in a gesture of magnanimity, I will say that yes - I write the way I speak, only in real life I am more jovial and animated. I might not be your kind of person, but that is completely irrelevant to the logic or facts at hand. It is what it is, whether you like the messenger or not.

Again doing a colon-puke-colon will give you the little symbol you want. I'm sure you want to use it very badly on me.

------> :puke: <------ :) just for you..

[jdj]

78. I really don't.

Not on you, on your behavior.

Especially considering the OP has not that many posts.

And I used to be alot like you, 'til I realized what an ass I was making of myself.

[Selwynn]

80. None of that changes the facts.

You can keep trying to make this a personal matter all you want, but it doesn't change the factual reality at all.

As far as my behavior goes, I'm doing very little but pointing out incorrect reasoning, and *responding* to your posts.

The only thing I will say is that if you're so far above all of this, why to you keep posting? It takes two to tango - I find most of your personal comments about me a little humorous since you keep posting right back just like I am. :)

[jdj]

82. What?

Your hostility alarmed me when I started reading this thread, so I decided to get you to direct it at me instead of the OP, because in my view, the OP didn't deserve to have F-this, and F-that, and F-ing stupid slung at him, when all we did was state what most of us will admit, that we size people up on a daily, if not hourly basis. It worked, and now we are the only ones posting to this thread, as far as I can tell.

[Selwynn]

85. People say fuck here all the fucking time. :)

What's more, the OP responded to me further down in this thread, and I responded to him, including saying that I did agree with him in certain principle, but not in other areas and that was the end of it. If the OP has a problem with my tone, then the OP can comment on it, and I'll try to remember that next time we meet.

By the way, my comment with FUCK in it was actually NOT to the OP, so your whole reasoning for posting in the first place seems misplaced.

[Selwynn]

86. Believe it or not -

I'm out. Its time for me to go now, family calls, and I have no problem just leaving this. :)

I wrote because you making some leaps in reasoning that are not correct. I continued writing because you continued making them. If that angers you, if that offends you in some way, there's little I can do about that, other than encourage you to breathe easy. :toast:

Be well,
Sel

[Flowerchild73]

98. Verification of the results

>>By the way, you said you went '8 for 8'. How did you verify your results were accurate?

Did you quiz each of them? Did you share with them why you were asking?<<

Interesting post. I'm curious, was this question ever answered?

[barb162]

23. they walk on their knuckles

You can tell who they are a mile away.

[Selwynn]

25. What a ridiculous over-simplifaction

The features you list as your "tell-tale" looks of a neocon, describe my best friend to a tee. A stunch liberal.

There are stoic, un-charismatic, short-haired, uptight grumpy democrats who are right and there are friendly, jovial, enthusiastic, loose republicans who are wrong. It is ridiculous to give in to this kind of anti-critical reasoning.

[wadestock]

36. Isn't the country's influence by the right "rearing it's ugly head"?

If it's so obvious....if for instance you can ...."on average" see such a difference in people....their demeanor....their uptightness....their overall "f-you" attitude.....don't you think it's symptomatic of something that's possibly got the entire country "by the balls".

Yeah....I think it's real evident....it's:

1. Limbaughism
2. Greed
3. Selfishness
4. A general distrust
5. A general hatred

etc etc...and yes it's a combo effect with how business has gone bad and how we all have much less security today.

BTW...the country never used to be like this....but when neoconservatism, Reaganism, Limbaughism et al start to get entrenched in the culture of America....well....

I think it's at a point where it is really rearing "its ugly head".

and although tongue in cheek as a comment....I'd talk to either of your friends and have a good shot just by noting their overall demeanor.

I'm pretty good at telling an A-hole from someone that has some humanity in them.....and I've also had a lot of success working on those that were erroneously on the right wing side but came over to the left because I knew they had some general sense of humanity in them.

I've found at this point in mid life....I don't waste my time with those that enjoy being inhuman.

[Selwynn]

45. Yes - I do think that general stress, incivility (on all sides) depression

..anxiety and other pervasive and non-specific (yet document able and verifiable) symptoms that by most actual studies is confirmed to be a reality are the result of the direction of our country - the neo-con agenda and the current administration would be included as a "cause."

What I utterly reject and am disgusted by, is the ridiculous notion that physical appearance is a tell tale sign of your political beliefs. I'm just a better critical thinker than that, and I understand the inherent biases and logical fallacies associated with an invalid and easily falsifiable claim such as that.

[devinsgram]

31. Just look for the hate on their face

then turn them around and you'll find the stick thats up their a**.

If they took it out they would be able to smile.

Like I said before, be happy if you are a democrat. You will live a lot longer, its a proven fact.

[ComerPerro]

34. You forgot the arrogant, self-satisfied smirk

[wadestock]

37. YES of course.....Bush Trademark

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[KansDem]

43. Sure, you can always tell a NEOCON...

You just can't tell him much!

<rimshot>

An old standard brought back out, dusted off, and updated...

[Carolina]

46. love your clues

but must confess, I have thought I had a certain type pegged only to discover I was wrong. I have been pleasantly surprised by some business types who despite appearances were anything but fundie repuke neocons. One guy at work ... business suit, stern demeanor, known to be well-off ... shocked the shit out of me by mumbling curses about "those damn Republicans who think tax cuts are the answer to everything" after a meeting about you guessed it: the state budget!

BTW, you say you got 8 for 8 at your state fair. How did you confirm that; did you ask them or were they wearing their * paraphenalia?

[wadestock]

92. The intro was tongue in cheek....

And the rest intended to bring a sense that the hatred of liberals and division in this country (well documented and obviously the neocons are at the root of this) has unfortunately become entrenched in our culture now...and is manifesting itself in a number of dysfunctional personality traits in those that follow "their cause"....almost in a religious way.

Yes I understand there are a number of complex reasons why people are uptight these days....one cause which has become part of our culture is the feat of being sued. Try to have fun anywhere....by God try to have a campfire in the woods, and the law is going to come down on you swiftly.

And as Grant used to always say....it's getting sicker and sicker by the minute....the culture is simply degrading due to overemphasis on profits and sleaze.

But what I've noticed since Limbaugh has been sucking the brains out of people's heads is this curious demeanor, this condescending attitude....especially amidst this "global war on terror" and the overall attitude that liberals are not only misguided wacos but that they are directly threatening our national security.

The interesting thing about it is that these people are almost in a trance. Like I said, you go to talk to them, and you'll almost automatically get a confrontational attitude right up front....the "chip on your shoulder" effect.

Yes of course there are exceptions and of course no one can generalize....but if 1000s are doing it and it's so noticeable....you know this has not only been embellished as an "intellectual stance" (and we know of course it's not intellectual)...but it is even more troubling that it has become part of an "emotional embellishment" (shades of Hitler?)

That's exactly what Limbaugh and co. had in mind in terms of winning people over. They seek emotional techniques, not anything which stands up to the scrutiny of facts....and I wanted to make the point that it's literally dumbing down the country in the process.

I perhaps could have said "can you tell a Ditto head" a mile away....and people would have had less feedback about the neocon connection....but the way I look at it these days is that Limbaugh and those that spread this crap are the "new neocons"...which is essentially the combination of all the things gone wrong in Reaganism combined with dysfunctional views about evil vs good and how the US is so infallibly good with its success that the rest of the world should be naturally devoured.

To get them to reveal themselves is as easy as looking for a fight....and I don't doubt that had I taken the tact "hey there's a liberal bothering a lady over there...you want to go and beat the crap out of him"....I could have gotten an army together within about 30 seconds.....

[Comadreja]

47. There's something to this

Think of the difference between John McCain and Tom DeLay. A southerner without the neocon smirk would be Jim Hightower. You can even see it in Afro-Americans. Compare the school-marmish, peevish churchlady style of Condi with Loretta King.

Or these kids:

with,say, Mormon missionaries.

[theboss]

97. I love the Mormon missionaries

And, frankly, if they weren't wearing a freaking uniform, I doubt I could pick them out of a lineup of well-scrubbed teenagers with good dental hygiene.

But the Mormons are so nice; I'm always tempted to ask them to clean my bathroom while they tell me about the testament of Jesus in America.

[HamdenRice]

103. and not one person you mentioned is a neo con n/t

a

[cosmicvortex20]

75. Pretty shallow for sure

I know tons of people on both side they dont fit these sterotypes.

[Swamp Rat]

84. Whether you are right or wrong I'll bet you had fun doing this little test

:D

[Z-E-R-0]

89. Neocons? Or Conservatives?

Most neoconservatives are old Jewish men from Eastern European descent.

[YoQuieroLiberty]

90. There MAY be some merit to this

But I think you have to be in a place crawling with conservatives, especially the wealthy religious type. Go to suburban Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, St. Louis, or Kansas City, and you will see any number of Trent Lotts and Tom DeLays. Perfectly coiffed hair, baggy eyes, a golfer's tan, and that jackassed scowl. Ugh.

[theboss]

93. No...But I can spot gays and Jews from a mile away....

This is just an insulting thread.

For the record, I look like Alex P. Keaton from Family Ties, except I always felt that his hair was a little on the longish side. I wouldn't dress like the typical "war protestor" if you paid me my hourly rate. And I'm as old-school Democratic as they come.

[theboss]

94. By the way, do you even know what a Neo-con is?

Most neo-cons are not Christian fundamentalissts or middle-american businessman. They are east coast intellectuals (often Jewish intellectuals) who abandoned the politics of the Left.

[wadestock]

99. I stirred up WAY more than I expected in terms using "NEOCON"

Of course 99% of the republican party DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT THEY REALLY BELIEVE....

OF COURSE THEY ARE MORE OR LESS "UNWILLING VICTIMS" OF THIS "FORCE" WE FIND OURSELVES FACING TODAY.....

If I had said...can you spot a "Ditto Head" a mile away...perhaps the whole thing would have been glided over....

You see...I feel Limbaugh is truly one of the champions of the "new neoconservative movement" which is clearly to exploit power WITHIN politics.

Forget about what it USED to be in intellectual circles....
You can also forget about what true CONSERVATIVISM USED TO BE....yes I remember my Dad was perhaps a true conservative.....

They aren't in power anymore....and THEY'VE CHANGED....
BY GOD THEY'VE BEEN CORRUPTED BY POWER.....

Since 1980 these "new neocons" found an interesting formula for gaining power THROUGH politics....and fully support tax breaks to the rich which then brings even more power into the mix....that much more GROWTH and that much more influence.

I feel wholely accurate in tagging these people as neocons...I know they don't know what they support....or what's happening to them....and perhaps that's what's so insidious about the whole thing.

But I feel that I'm especially accurate in this sense.....
The type that I've sterotyped....the Ditto head .....is the new neocon in the sense that they like the power base that they think they support....that's a whole part of the cocky attitude...they like the kicking ass around the world....

Call them "unwilling neocons" if you like....but they fit like a glove into the new neocon scheme of things.....

[HamdenRice]

101. Please try to educate yourself so you know your opponent

Those of us who are correcting you and others about the use of the term neo-con are not trying to nit pick. It's just that political labels are useful only if they are used correctly and with some precision.

Calling Rush Limbaugh a neo-con is like saying that John Kerry won the primaries because he had legions of Deaniac supporting him. It's just wrong, incorrect. Deaniacs is a term used to describe people who support Dean, not people who support Kerry.

A lot of what you are saying is as ridiculous as saying, "Ted Kennedy represents the Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Democratic Party." The DNC is the Clinton-Gore wing of the party. Again, to say otherwise is just plain wrong.

When the major newspapers and political analysts use the term neo-con they are talking about a specific group of people, with particular positions in the administration.

Neo-cons are not the main supporters of tax breaks for the rich, as you asset. I'm not sure that the neo-cons in the administration even give a rat's ass about tax policy at all.

The neo-cons within the administration are concerned almost exclusively with foreign policy -- the war in Iraq and policy toward Israel.

They have caused the worst catastrophe in the history of US foreign policy (Iraq) and worse, they have some very nasty ideas up their sleeves. You cannot begin to help prevent further catastrophe if you don't even know who they are or what their goals are.

Try to get informed about this for the sake of the country -- and your threads here at DU

[wadestock]

105. Your condesending attitude deserves a good reply

And I will give it as part of a future post.

Don't think of yourself as any DU intellect because you are completely off in your comments. I had posted as part of this tread an excellent writeup on the history of neoconservativism....which perhaps you glossed over...never mind ...because you have some preconceptions of exactly who they are and because they have not specifically defined themselves as a "party" perhaps the problem is somehow self contained.

No....they have a great following and they are alive and well as a bunch of dysfunctional people who have dysfunctional ideologies. I don't let the lack of definition stop me from seeing how easy it is for almost anyone today to fall into that dysfunctional ideology.

The neocons effectively rose into the republican party and although the notion of "government power in any centralized form" was strange bedfellows for their ideology...they became intoxicated with the new home and its accoutrements.

No they didn't invent Reaganomics....duh....but they very much "enjoyed the ride" that they thought it would give them. In effect, their theology was becoming quickly a non-theology because they became corrupt.

Those who you might feel expand and generalize on the term "neocon" are very much in intellectual circles and there is vast reading in that regard to the extent of the problem and how to fix it.

I will admit that calling Limbaugh a neocon is a bold statement, but I can defend the comment on a number of levels....stay tuned.

[skypilot]

95. That is why...

...no matter how many times I see "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (the '70s version) it still gets under my skin. That movie captures just what it feels like these days. If you haven't seen it in a while, check it out. You'll see.

On edit: Also, if you ever come across a short story called "The Grey Ones" by J.B.Priestley, read it. More of the same.

[PatriotGames]

96. I don't think so. Many people (me included) could pass for a Repub

at first glance.

[Cats Against Frist]

100. I can't quite put my finger on it

but when I was watching the Democratic convention, and the "Hardball" et. al. coverage, I was watching the people in the background, holding up the Bush/Cheney '04 signs, and they DID have a similar appearance -- every night. One of the more prominent things WAS a heavy or pronounced brow -- I know people are joking about that in the "caveman" posts, but I think there's a little something to the idea of how "masculine or feminine" you look, the more likely you are to be conservative -- meaning that you've swallowed both your sex role, and your place in the consumer pursuit of "beauty" rather well, and found it sweet.

Of course, this wouldn't be the case, all the time, and I know some pimply faced army-wannabes, who are scrawny and whatnot, are Republicans, and chicks like Ashley Judd are liberal -- so it's just a test theory.

But I'd say, if you were in the "prediction" game, that you could use this litmus for a basis for guessing.

[HamdenRice]

102. Powell and State Dept. on Neo-cons--Ever hear this one?

At the very beginning of the run up to war in Iraq when the State Dept and CIA were still expressing doubts about the war, and leaking to criticize Bushco's fanatic embrace of the genocidal Sharon government, Powell and co were leaking furiously about how silly the neo-cons' ideas on the middle east were.

The neo-cons were spinning the idea that the road to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians was through Baghdad, not Jerusalem. In other words, the US had to take down Iraq to weaken and scare Syria and the Palestinians, so they would make peace on Israeli terms.

But State Dept had a very funny if tragic joke that summarized what it thought of this ridiculous neo-cons policy in the middle east was:

Everyone move over one.

State Dept said the neocons wanted Sharon to ethnically cleanse the West Bank of its Palestinian population so Israel could annex and settle it. But the Palestinians would not be stateless because their legitimate "state" is Jordan, which already has a Palestinian majority. They would take over Jordan and depose the Hashemite kingdom of King Abdullah (son of the late King Hussein). But the Hasemite kingdom would not be out of luck, because after Sadam and the Baathists were deposed by the US from Iraq, the US would install the Hashemite kingdom in Iraq as a royal restoration.

This joke summarized the true level of madness of the Neo-con middle east policy.