quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
Like Translator, you appear to assume that all conservatives (or neoconservatives) are idiots that cannot possibly have thought throught through their ideas. Why? Because they have a different conclusion than you. [This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 06-21-2004).]

You do have a fair point with this Mr Dark. I don't belive that every Conservative is an idiot. Although I do belive every Neo-Con is! Convservatism is often a reasoned and rational approach to issues seeking balance and progress at a controlled pace. Neo-Conservatism however is a reactionary anti-movement that founds itself on a strange mix of ideals that ultimately are not compatible. They talk about freedom and then interfere in the sexuality of people, they talk about personal responsibility and then excuse Corporate Chairmen for massive fraud against many people. I miss intelligent conservatism, and to be honest I miss intelligent liberalism as well. The only reason I side with liberalism is that although it is very flawed I believe that unlike Neo-Cons they have much better intentions.

Back to the debate at hand however, I guess my only worry was that Bradburys remarks would just be another point score for the Republican Neo-Cons. They have this marvelous rhetorical tactic of throwing a weak and unfair point into an issue and then walking away from it. I'd honestly hate to see Ray Bradbury used as another petty point score for the likes of Karl Rove, or worse still Ashcroft.

If I were to define myself I'd say I was a moderate libertarian with some socialist leanings and a few harsh justice tendancies.

I was also a little annoyed at the charecterization of Michael Moore who although a very flawed individual does, in my opinion, at least have very good intentions with his works. "Roger and Me" was about jobs, dignity and livelyhoods, "Bowling for Columbine" was not as much an anti-gun movie as it was a movie about not giving guns to scared people, and although I haven't seen it I think from all I know that Farenheit 911 will be a movie about abuse of power as much as it is an inditement of Bush. Moore is equally prone to knocking down Liberal myths (such as gun ownership is the main problem - he shows that Canadians have more guns per Capita) as he is conservative ones. I think the reason Moore scares the Neo-Cons is that reasonable, fact based arguements are uncomfortable for them in the face of their reliance upon accepted "truths" that are usually unverifiable if not false (especially those pedalled by that master of innacuracies Rush Limbaugh). My favorite comparrison is to pick up a book by Limbaugh or Ann Coulter and compare it's footnotes with works by Al Franken or Greg Palast and it's obvious that those nasty liberals actually do their research (albeit still often open to interpretation) when the Neo-Con demagogues rarely back up their statements. As someone who is keen on Science thanks to Bradbury and other great science fiction and Science fact writers I've picked up on the great scientific principal of research and verification. That is something very often (though not always) missing from the Neo-Con repetoire.

I guess I can be a little arrogant in assuming that I am right but then I'm a little like one of those overly confident scientists who has a degree of faith in the evidence to back the conclusion.

I don't believe every con or neo-con an idiot. I believe many of them are, others are failed people, others are confused people, and a small select few actaully believe in conservatism for the right reasons.

Cheers, Translator

Translator,

Which is just about me feelings on liberals/progressives.

By the way, I believe you all are bandying about the term neo-conservative a little too loosely. I don't think a neo-conservative is quite what you think it is.

Best,

Pete