Jay_Esbe
08-03-2006, 04:49 PM
"Guilt by association" is often not a legitimate assertion. Whether it is legitimate or not depends on the relationship of the parties to a moral paradigm; do the associated parties in the accusation share the PRIMARY moral paradigm? Are there significant additional differences to warrant the charge meaningless and/or inaccurate?
As an example: I may be accused of being an "Anti-Semite" (and am, every day) because there are people who hate Jews, and also not un-coincidentally oppose Zionism. But my opposition to Zionism not only doesn't coexist with a hatred of "Jews", but in fact, exists in part because I believe it causes great suffering to Jews who are innocent of the evil ambition. I also believe that's most Jews. So the accusation of me using guilt by association is not legitimate.
On the other hand, there exists the moral paradigm of Zionism itself as not a peripheral, but a central "value" of neoconservatism. If one is a supporter of Zionism living in America, they are as surely a supporter of neoconservatism as any supporter of Hitler's Aryan ideology: Zionist "victory" and regional control of the Middle East is the heart and center of the agenda set forth in PNAC, neoconservatism's "Mein Kampf" ideological center piece.
Those who support Zionism therefor may accurately and rightly called neoconservatives whether they like it or not. There are also other groups which have additional agendas which support the neoconservative/Zionist plan for the world being advanced by the Bush regime, first and foremost, "Evangelical Christians". Although there may exist different and/or additional religious motivations for their support, they as Zionist supporters are rightly called neoconservatives. Bush himself is one of them.
The great myth which has been exposed by this debate since Israel began it's extermination of the resistance in Lebanon, is that all neoconservatives share conservative socio-economic views; they do not. No one could rightly argue that Thomas Friedman or Christopher Hitchens are not bonafide neocons. Yet they are better known prior to all of this, as "liberals". Today's life and death circumstances have rendered a distinction between liberal neocons, and GOP neocons as meaningless as debating which people in Nazi Germany enjoyed modern art, but still supported the "final solution".
I have one thing to say to you "Lib", and it isn't "Uncle": God is on my side. You're beloved fascist ideology may not be defeated militarily, but it has been shown as what it truly is, and God is on my side far from the brutality of this current world. Having shown that sometimes guilt by association CAN be legitimate when primary, central, and crucial ideologies are shared, I present a partial list of the individuals on YOUR side, that it may be RIGHTLY said, "One is known by the company they keep":
Pat Robertson.
Jerry Falwell.
Ralph Reed.
George W. Bush.
Condi Rice.
Dick Cheney.
Do not think you're not now seen naked. Your denials mean nothing as you stand before us all, blood on your hands and demands that if we "don't love America we need to leave". I don't care what your other "values" are; You are still a neocon. Just like Hitchens. Just like Thomas Friedman. Just like Joe Lieberman..........................Just like Dick Cheney and Bush. He would certainly also kiss you were he here.
As an example: I may be accused of being an "Anti-Semite" (and am, every day) because there are people who hate Jews, and also not un-coincidentally oppose Zionism. But my opposition to Zionism not only doesn't coexist with a hatred of "Jews", but in fact, exists in part because I believe it causes great suffering to Jews who are innocent of the evil ambition. I also believe that's most Jews. So the accusation of me using guilt by association is not legitimate.
On the other hand, there exists the moral paradigm of Zionism itself as not a peripheral, but a central "value" of neoconservatism. If one is a supporter of Zionism living in America, they are as surely a supporter of neoconservatism as any supporter of Hitler's Aryan ideology: Zionist "victory" and regional control of the Middle East is the heart and center of the agenda set forth in PNAC, neoconservatism's "Mein Kampf" ideological center piece.
Those who support Zionism therefor may accurately and rightly called neoconservatives whether they like it or not. There are also other groups which have additional agendas which support the neoconservative/Zionist plan for the world being advanced by the Bush regime, first and foremost, "Evangelical Christians". Although there may exist different and/or additional religious motivations for their support, they as Zionist supporters are rightly called neoconservatives. Bush himself is one of them.
The great myth which has been exposed by this debate since Israel began it's extermination of the resistance in Lebanon, is that all neoconservatives share conservative socio-economic views; they do not. No one could rightly argue that Thomas Friedman or Christopher Hitchens are not bonafide neocons. Yet they are better known prior to all of this, as "liberals". Today's life and death circumstances have rendered a distinction between liberal neocons, and GOP neocons as meaningless as debating which people in Nazi Germany enjoyed modern art, but still supported the "final solution".
I have one thing to say to you "Lib", and it isn't "Uncle": God is on my side. You're beloved fascist ideology may not be defeated militarily, but it has been shown as what it truly is, and God is on my side far from the brutality of this current world. Having shown that sometimes guilt by association CAN be legitimate when primary, central, and crucial ideologies are shared, I present a partial list of the individuals on YOUR side, that it may be RIGHTLY said, "One is known by the company they keep":
Pat Robertson.
Jerry Falwell.
Ralph Reed.
George W. Bush.
Condi Rice.
Dick Cheney.
Do not think you're not now seen naked. Your denials mean nothing as you stand before us all, blood on your hands and demands that if we "don't love America we need to leave". I don't care what your other "values" are; You are still a neocon. Just like Hitchens. Just like Thomas Friedman. Just like Joe Lieberman..........................Just like Dick Cheney and Bush. He would certainly also kiss you were he here.