Balanced diet = A good mixture of foods. Meat and 2 veg so to speak. What it isn't is pre-processed crap for every meal.
I'm what would be considered a foodie. Eat organic when at all possible. I even make a large amount of my own meatstuffs like sausage and bacon. I'm certain I eat probably a 10th of the so called chemicals most people do. Yeah I get my nitrates - mostly from veggies though.
You may have had issues with weight and sucks to be you, for some people it's more complex. Note I said 'the people who...' implying the ones who do that, not all of them.
You could run that by ten people and ten will come to th esame conclusion I would.
How about me calling you Einstein - think that I was calling some people who get smug about obesity and not you?Hell no, I was calling you that.
Because it walks and quacks like a generalization.
And no, my weight is not a matter of sucking to be me. I come from a long line of robust people with efficient metabolisms. Our family lives on average the same as everyone else. Even in the really old days, thos of us not killed by accident or war the men tended to live to 85 and the home to their mid-late 90's, who knows this generation? 150 years ago, no small feat.
So, what do you want? A sympathetic pat on the belly? There there fatty, it's not your fault it's your genes. Might be true for you but for most it's not.
I would like for you to stop being smug. Vwery few wear it well, and it is uglier and any adipose tissue I've ever seen. The shallowness of the fatshamers is pretty remarkable, and you exhibit all the symptoms. I need no pat on the belly. You, dear stealth_ finger, are in dire, desparate soul saving need of a teeny biy of humility, and possibly are hiding an esteem issue - many people who have a need to denigrate others do. Hope springs eternal
Firefox user here. Never had problems with Safari crashing either. Neither has my mom, dog nor my desk lamp (neither of which uses Safari...or computers for that matter).
I think this is just a small issue that affects a minority of users that is being blown way out of proportion by Apple haters.
That was not an ad hominem. Yes, it wasn't particularly polite,
Some day's I'm like that. My bad.
but he addressed your claim on its own merits. You clearly don't have a very full understanding of precisely how much work would go in to such a thing, like how many people across different companies and institutions in various countries would be involved. That one simple answer sheds a lot of light on your claims, and it doesn't help them one bit.
Okay, let me try to addresss the issue in a way that won't trigger anyone.
Science - and biology is a big part of science - has a lot of research going on all of the time. Most all of it is documented in publicly available reports. So what we have is not quite a level playing field, but the basic information is there for different researchers and companies to work on.
Now why does this happen? Interestingly enough, one of the drivers of this open info concept is saving money. If everyone is being hush hush, you'll get a lot of money wasted re-inventing the wheel. So in the interest of progress, they share data, and try to improve on it. If a particular company finds a new way to adapt the research into a valuable drug, they then patent it, and until it runs out, they profit from it.
side note - one issue that comes up from time to time is small incremental changes to re-patent drugs, and where those changes are made simply for making a profit. That isn't a conspiracy, but a loophole, and is no secret.
So now we have to try to make a conspiracy of hiding a cure from the public.
One of the first problems that we have is of course based on a pahrma company finding a cure that it wants to hide. This would fly in teh face of the profit incentive. Theree might be arguments about generation of good will.
Since generally the research is published, in order to form the conspiracy, the discovering company would have to not publish any of this research.
But next, they would have to meet with all of the other Pharma companies to share the research that they did not publish on a miracle drug they did not patent. There would be an inherent danger in this, because they would be sharing data and processes that are not protected by patents, which any of the other companies could then steal.
So it would require every single pharma company to have an identical outlook, that they would rather sit on a drug that could make them millions and generate a lot of positive buzz and goodwill.
It would take every single researcher involved to have an identical attitude, where they might be a looking at a Nobel prize, they choose instead to keep a serious advance in medicine a secret. The researcher and team would have to have the same attitude as whoever decided to keep a miracle cure, secret.
Finally, what is the profit margin on a drug that isn't ever sold? Sorry if that triggers anyone - I really cannot find a more polite way to put it.
It's like most conspiracy theories, when reduced to basics, they simply don't hold up. This one tends to violate both the research models, the patent models, the profit motive and the public accolades motive of individuals.
Whatever happened to eating a balanced diet and getting exercise?
Define balanced diet precisely and universally, Einstein.
You aren't a very good source of wisdom if you don't read anything but the headline.
What I don't get is the people that eat 3 full meals a day, go to work and sit down all day then come home to sit down all evening and then wonder why they get fat.
What I don't get is strawman arguments. As a person who has struggled with keeping my weight in line most of my life, what I don't get is people like yourself thinking it's oh so simple. My metabolism doesn't handle carbs well, my lowest adult weight was achieved by running several miles a day, bicycling 25 miles a day, another half hour of weights, and a half hour of other exercises. And around 800 calories a day. That's a guess, because I only ate one meal a day. That got me down to 185, which was considered borderline obese for my height. Incorrect of course, because I had almost no body fat.
So here ya go Einstein - Where was I going to remove more food and get more exercise? I was basically working, or exercising. TV consisted of watching the evening news before bed. Awaiting your calculations.
Couple that with say, my wife who is model thin. She ate roughly what I ate, is about 3 inches taller, her exercise was horseback riding, but she weighs about half what I weighed.
There is all manner of parameters that go into a person's weight. Body structure, metabolism, and the gut bacteria thing is very interesting. Moderate food consumption and sufficient exercise is always indicated, but if there is one thing in likfe I've found about weight it is that most people who think it's really simple are those who don't have much trouble keeping a good weight.
Sell them to audiophiles. You have a limited supply of cables used in a unique, world-class esoteric application. That's a perfect match for people with deep pockets and shallow skulls.
Oh yeah, oh yeaah! Here's the hook. Since the cables have been bombarded by high energy particles, they've had all of their atoms lined up in a manner which results in less frequency domain delay, and a purity of sound unmatched by mere normal cables.
That and special gold plated fuses, zebrawood knobs and those special rocks will give you a kickass audio system.
If you can really believe this idea in this day and age then humanity has major problems. Sadly I don't even think a round the world flight (which I've done) would cure them they'd probably think the pilot turned the flight around slowly?
Humanity has major problems Now that anti-government is turning to anti-all-science, I suspect that a sizable percentage of the US populous will gleefully return the country - if not the world - to the dark ages.
That really depends on the details, doesn't it? How exactly would hundreds and thousands or people know about this? People know only what they are told, what they witness directly, and what they can infer and deduce from these direct sources.
All of that secret research, and none of us or any other researcher can see it. I can see why you are a conspiracist, because you don't know how science and biology works.
Damn bilderburgers and Vril hotties anyhow! Poisoning white people with Jet Contrails and Floride (did you know that it increases the intelligence of everyone but god fearing white people? Vaccines poisoning our children and suppressed prepetual motion machines that could make all humankind free of worry, the Earth is going to blow up because there is something wrong with the core and NASA never went to the moon and are engaged in the Kenyan Army's plot to take over the world, andand everything else that we believe in is wrong.
And if your so called "unwitting dupes" are both the beneficiaries of and responsible agents for the acts of conspiracy? Humans make most decisions without explicit deliberation, let alone explicit communication, of their aims and means.
Got a live one, we does! Let me guess - you haunt the kookier sections of Youtube.
What about conspiracies with systematic plausible deniability in the acts of consensus?
For example, if pharmaceutical companies have suppressed a cure for cancer would that necessitate an explicit admission of the conspiracy even between conspirators? If not, then how exactly would the conspiracy be vulnerable to leakage?
It is really really hard to have a conspiracy on that level. You're going to have hints from somewhere, usually earlier research. Science doesn't happen in a vacuum., and tends toward increment.
Another problem is - in a competitive environment - you're going ot have to argue that none of the companies want to make any money off ther new treatment. Even if company A, B, and C collude, company D can swoop in and make a killing.
Because Every company would have to know all of the aspects of producing your wonder drug, all would have to not want to make money in a competitive business where not all the companies have identical offerings.
But hey, a true conspiracy theorist is unshakable in their conspiracy theories.
That's pure Socialism. In the USA have a MINIMUM wage - except for those exempted, such as agricultural workers, some food service workers, and congressional flunkies.
By most computations, the minimum wage in effect for a given US locale is LESS than a liveable wage. Which means that something has to fill the gap: food stamps, welfare, charity, working 2 jobs, and so forth.
Thus, what you are proposing is UN-AMERICAN and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I'm assuming you are being facetious,
But really, the achille's heel of supply side-ism is that eventually people cannot afford what you are supplying.
Seriously. This sort of bean counter bullshit is going to continue until people no longer hesitate to drag it into the light.
Yes, sure, it's up to every company to maximize its own profits.
And its up to every company to not eat it's seed corn as well.
Let us imagine the supply sider's dream of every American worker (except them) to be paid less than the wages in the lowest paid countries. Then there is no reason to outsource labor. Isn't this what we are told every waking moment?
Okay, mission accomplished.
Now let us imagine these people who are making that - oh, I don't know what you would call it - say "minimum liveable wage" Any less, and they'd starve to death.
Now imagine all these Americans buying homes and cable tv and a new smartphone every year and taking trips to Disney World every year. and having retirement plans and going to eat in nice places and taking vacations to the shore.
And just imagine the folks who would not have jobs where folks sped their money
I don't mean to sound like a crazy man, but wouldn't it be a good thing to have more Americans make more money so they could buy more stuff so that your company sells more?
The times I made more money in life I tended to spend more money. Go figure.
Austerity only works for a very short time. Then it becomes a war of attrition like race to the bottom.
Don't get me started on emergency appropriations that don't show up on the budget! They may be ok when you're just getting started on something but once it is ongoing as you say they are the height of dishonesty.
We need to go back to waging war in the old fashioned way. Rationing, short supplies. make it hit the populous so they don't think it's just a romp in the park. Because the business of making war on a credit card is bullshit.
I'm not sure giving more tax money to the idiot politicians they've elected will do much good. If there was ever a place that should be cutting taxes, it's a place where the politicians are ruining everything.
Well, the Good citizens of oklahoma will then get just what they deserve.
I always thought there was something a little wrong with the concept of "Elect me to the Government - I hate the Government!"
Best thing to do is read the entire Strauss article.
One thing that many do not know is that the neoconservatives had roots in liberalism. In the 50's and early 60's they endorsed the American Civil Rights movement, racial integration, and Martin Luther King Jr. Amazingly enough, neoconservatives of that time thought that American modern Liberalism had become too conservative. Holy cannoli!
Many Neoconservatives were moderate socialists who were associated with the Socialist party of America, and it's successor, the Social Democrats, and had many members who were devotees of Max Schactman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... A Marxist theorist. Also good reading.
So they split away during the 1970's, and started moving to a sort of faux conservatism.
Then came the 1990's. The neocons were seriously pissed off at the First George Bush. They really wanted to take out Saddam Hussein, and run the country
The outcry was pretty loud, with the doctrine sounding like a new American Imperialism - it was rewritten, but still had the basics of the neocon's pre-emptive war and global outlook.
Interestingly and oddly enough, in the late 90's Irving Kristol, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... named the "Godfather of NeoConservatism, and member of the so called "New York Intellectuals" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., yup a Trotskyist group, started rejecting evolution and Darwinism. Weird. And oddly enough so did the Stalinist Soviets, who preferred Lysenkoism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Some folks think that their war on evolution might have just been a lie to attract fundamentalist Christians - who knows?
In 1998 They published an open letter to Bill Clinton urging an Iraq war. They finally got their way in 2002, with the "Bush Doctrine" after which we promptly went in and invaded a country that didn't have a thing to do with 9/11.
But the NeoCons, prevailed in getting Bush to adopt much of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. An important part of the Bush Doctrine was that they used the word "pre-emptive" rather than preventative, which would be in direct violation of Geneva conventions.
But as the 1992 Wolfowitz report Defense Planning Guidance puts it:
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."
Whoa, that's a tad nasty. Sounds like everlasting war. Sounds like making the entire world your enemy. That really hasn't worked out too well in the past.
Anyhow, I've given you a shitload to read. As a moderate to paleoconservative, I do believe that Trotskyites had grabbed power in the Republican party, that they have major underpinni
Slashdot Mirror
Nice straw man. Libertarians like myself are perfectly happy with science, but not overarching government.
Like yourself? Straw man? Libertarians? dafuq? Where'd I mention Libertarians?
Okay opera ghost, since you went there - Nice No True Scotsman argument!
Balanced diet = A good mixture of foods. Meat and 2 veg so to speak. What it isn't is pre-processed crap for every meal.
I'm what would be considered a foodie. Eat organic when at all possible. I even make a large amount of my own meatstuffs like sausage and bacon. I'm certain I eat probably a 10th of the so called chemicals most people do. Yeah I get my nitrates - mostly from veggies though.
You may have had issues with weight and sucks to be you, for some people it's more complex. Note I said 'the people who...' implying the ones who do that, not all of them.
You could run that by ten people and ten will come to th esame conclusion I would.
How about me calling you Einstein - think that I was calling some people who get smug about obesity and not you?Hell no, I was calling you that.
Because it walks and quacks like a generalization.
And no, my weight is not a matter of sucking to be me. I come from a long line of robust people with efficient metabolisms. Our family lives on average the same as everyone else. Even in the really old days, thos of us not killed by accident or war the men tended to live to 85 and the home to their mid-late 90's, who knows this generation? 150 years ago, no small feat.
So, what do you want? A sympathetic pat on the belly? There there fatty, it's not your fault it's your genes. Might be true for you but for most it's not.
I would like for you to stop being smug. Vwery few wear it well, and it is uglier and any adipose tissue I've ever seen. The shallowness of the fatshamers is pretty remarkable, and you exhibit all the symptoms. I need no pat on the belly. You, dear stealth_ finger, are in dire, desparate soul saving need of a teeny biy of humility, and possibly are hiding an esteem issue - many people who have a need to denigrate others do. Hope springs eternal
Firefox user here. Never had problems with Safari crashing either. Neither has my mom, dog nor my desk lamp (neither of which uses Safari...or computers for that matter).
I think this is just a small issue that affects a minority of users that is being blown way out of proportion by Apple haters.
Exactly.
Thank you for that. Your hugely statistically significant data point will add so much to the discussion.
Touchy this morning? I've been testing it out, now that I'm in Safari at home, and it still isn't crashing.
And perhaps people's browsers that are not crashing might offer some insight into those that are. Just sayin'.
Nice ad hominem + straw man fallacy combo.
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
That was not an ad hominem. Yes, it wasn't particularly polite,
Some day's I'm like that. My bad.
but he addressed your claim on its own merits. You clearly don't have a very full understanding of precisely how much work would go in to such a thing, like how many people across different companies and institutions in various countries would be involved. That one simple answer sheds a lot of light on your claims, and it doesn't help them one bit.
Okay, let me try to addresss the issue in a way that won't trigger anyone.
Science - and biology is a big part of science - has a lot of research going on all of the time. Most all of it is documented in publicly available reports. So what we have is not quite a level playing field, but the basic information is there for different researchers and companies to work on.
Now why does this happen? Interestingly enough, one of the drivers of this open info concept is saving money. If everyone is being hush hush, you'll get a lot of money wasted re-inventing the wheel. So in the interest of progress, they share data, and try to improve on it. If a particular company finds a new way to adapt the research into a valuable drug, they then patent it, and until it runs out, they profit from it.
side note - one issue that comes up from time to time is small incremental changes to re-patent drugs, and where those changes are made simply for making a profit. That isn't a conspiracy, but a loophole, and is no secret.
So now we have to try to make a conspiracy of hiding a cure from the public.
One of the first problems that we have is of course based on a pahrma company finding a cure that it wants to hide. This would fly in teh face of the profit incentive. Theree might be arguments about generation of good will.
Since generally the research is published, in order to form the conspiracy, the discovering company would have to not publish any of this research.
But next, they would have to meet with all of the other Pharma companies to share the research that they did not publish on a miracle drug they did not patent. There would be an inherent danger in this, because they would be sharing data and processes that are not protected by patents, which any of the other companies could then steal.
So it would require every single pharma company to have an identical outlook, that they would rather sit on a drug that could make them millions and generate a lot of positive buzz and goodwill.
It would take every single researcher involved to have an identical attitude, where they might be a looking at a Nobel prize, they choose instead to keep a serious advance in medicine a secret. The researcher and team would have to have the same attitude as whoever decided to keep a miracle cure, secret.
Finally, what is the profit margin on a drug that isn't ever sold? Sorry if that triggers anyone - I really cannot find a more polite way to put it.
It's like most conspiracy theories, when reduced to basics, they simply don't hold up. This one tends to violate both the research models, the patent models, the profit motive and the public accolades motive of individuals.
You don't know me.
Can't say as that upsets me very much.
Whatever happened to eating a balanced diet and getting exercise?
Define balanced diet precisely and universally, Einstein.
You aren't a very good source of wisdom if you don't read anything but the headline.
What I don't get is the people that eat 3 full meals a day, go to work and sit down all day then come home to sit down all evening and then wonder why they get fat.
What I don't get is strawman arguments. As a person who has struggled with keeping my weight in line most of my life, what I don't get is people like yourself thinking it's oh so simple. My metabolism doesn't handle carbs well, my lowest adult weight was achieved by running several miles a day, bicycling 25 miles a day, another half hour of weights, and a half hour of other exercises. And around 800 calories a day. That's a guess, because I only ate one meal a day. That got me down to 185, which was considered borderline obese for my height. Incorrect of course, because I had almost no body fat.
So here ya go Einstein - Where was I going to remove more food and get more exercise? I was basically working, or exercising. TV consisted of watching the evening news before bed. Awaiting your calculations.
Couple that with say, my wife who is model thin. She ate roughly what I ate, is about 3 inches taller, her exercise was horseback riding, but she weighs about half what I weighed.
There is all manner of parameters that go into a person's weight. Body structure, metabolism, and the gut bacteria thing is very interesting. Moderate food consumption and sufficient exercise is always indicated, but if there is one thing in likfe I've found about weight it is that most people who think it's really simple are those who don't have much trouble keeping a good weight.
Sell them to audiophiles. You have a limited supply of cables used in a unique, world-class esoteric application. That's a perfect match for people with deep pockets and shallow skulls.
Oh yeah, oh yeaah! Here's the hook. Since the cables have been bombarded by high energy particles, they've had all of their atoms lined up in a manner which results in less frequency domain delay, and a purity of sound unmatched by mere normal cables.
That and special gold plated fuses, zebrawood knobs and those special rocks will give you a kickass audio system.
If you can really believe this idea in this day and age then humanity has major problems. Sadly I don't even think a round the world flight (which I've done) would cure them they'd probably think the pilot turned the flight around slowly?
Humanity has major problems Now that anti-government is turning to anti-all-science, I suspect that a sizable percentage of the US populous will gleefully return the country - if not the world - to the dark ages.
Perhaps flat-earthers just need to spend some time on a boat to get the real picture.
Only if you use your ranging skills to sink it.
Actually, this isn't even a new marketing technique. The old adage still stands : there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Tell that to Jerry Sandusky.
A reason for Republicans and other deniers to like chocolate people.
Not on Safari at the moment, but I've had no such problems.
started talking about some of the fraud in the major AGW stories, I think that conspiracy has already unraveled.
Cites? References? I'll look all of them up I promise.
Or were you just showing smarts by posting as a coward?
That really depends on the details, doesn't it? How exactly would hundreds and thousands or people know about this? People know only what they are told, what they witness directly, and what they can infer and deduce from these direct sources.
All of that secret research, and none of us or any other researcher can see it. I can see why you are a conspiracist, because you don't know how science and biology works.
Damn bilderburgers and Vril hotties anyhow! Poisoning white people with Jet Contrails and Floride (did you know that it increases the intelligence of everyone but god fearing white people? Vaccines poisoning our children and suppressed prepetual motion machines that could make all humankind free of worry, the Earth is going to blow up because there is something wrong with the core and NASA never went to the moon and are engaged in the Kenyan Army's plot to take over the world, andand everything else that we believe in is wrong.
And if your so called "unwitting dupes" are both the beneficiaries of and responsible agents for the acts of conspiracy? Humans make most decisions without explicit deliberation, let alone explicit communication, of their aims and means.
Got a live one, we does! Let me guess - you haunt the kookier sections of Youtube.
What about conspiracies with systematic plausible deniability in the acts of consensus? For example, if pharmaceutical companies have suppressed a cure for cancer would that necessitate an explicit admission of the conspiracy even between conspirators? If not, then how exactly would the conspiracy be vulnerable to leakage?
It is really really hard to have a conspiracy on that level. You're going to have hints from somewhere, usually earlier research. Science doesn't happen in a vacuum., and tends toward increment.
Another problem is - in a competitive environment - you're going ot have to argue that none of the companies want to make any money off ther new treatment. Even if company A, B, and C collude, company D can swoop in and make a killing.
Because Every company would have to know all of the aspects of producing your wonder drug, all would have to not want to make money in a competitive business where not all the companies have identical offerings.
But hey, a true conspiracy theorist is unshakable in their conspiracy theories.
That's pure Socialism. In the USA have a MINIMUM wage - except for those exempted, such as agricultural workers, some food service workers, and congressional flunkies.
By most computations, the minimum wage in effect for a given US locale is LESS than a liveable wage. Which means that something has to fill the gap: food stamps, welfare, charity, working 2 jobs, and so forth.
Thus, what you are proposing is UN-AMERICAN and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I'm assuming you are being facetious,
But really, the achille's heel of supply side-ism is that eventually people cannot afford what you are supplying.
Problem solved.
Oh, and that ad blocking = terism.
Seriously. This sort of bean counter bullshit is going to continue until people no longer hesitate to drag it into the light.
Yes, sure, it's up to every company to maximize its own profits.
And its up to every company to not eat it's seed corn as well.
Let us imagine the supply sider's dream of every American worker (except them) to be paid less than the wages in the lowest paid countries. Then there is no reason to outsource labor. Isn't this what we are told every waking moment?
Okay, mission accomplished.
Now let us imagine these people who are making that - oh, I don't know what you would call it - say "minimum liveable wage" Any less, and they'd starve to death.
Now imagine all these Americans buying homes and cable tv and a new smartphone every year and taking trips to Disney World every year. and having retirement plans and going to eat in nice places and taking vacations to the shore.
And just imagine the folks who would not have jobs where folks sped their money I don't mean to sound like a crazy man, but wouldn't it be a good thing to have more Americans make more money so they could buy more stuff so that your company sells more?
The times I made more money in life I tended to spend more money. Go figure.
Austerity only works for a very short time. Then it becomes a war of attrition like race to the bottom.
Don't get me started on emergency appropriations that don't show up on the budget! They may be ok when you're just getting started on something but once it is ongoing as you say they are the height of dishonesty.
We need to go back to waging war in the old fashioned way. Rationing, short supplies. make it hit the populous so they don't think it's just a romp in the park. Because the business of making war on a credit card is bullshit.
Politics has never been about embracing reality, so any sort of name calling that sticks is effective.
I disagree. We managed to run this country just fine for a good while until the kooks came along.
I'm not sure giving more tax money to the idiot politicians they've elected will do much good. If there was ever a place that should be cutting taxes, it's a place where the politicians are ruining everything.
Well, the Good citizens of oklahoma will then get just what they deserve.
I always thought there was something a little wrong with the concept of "Elect me to the Government - I hate the Government!"
Kinda setting themselves up for failure.
Trotskyite neocons. I can't parse that one. could you explain. (yes I know about trotsky).
Here's a little bit to start you off:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com... The neocon movement was named during the 70's, but existed beforehand. Largely founded by a refugee from Nazi Germany, Leo Strauss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Best thing to do is read the entire Strauss article.
One thing that many do not know is that the neoconservatives had roots in liberalism. In the 50's and early 60's they endorsed the American Civil Rights movement, racial integration, and Martin Luther King Jr. Amazingly enough, neoconservatives of that time thought that American modern Liberalism had become too conservative. Holy cannoli!
Many Neoconservatives were moderate socialists who were associated with the Socialist party of America, and it's successor, the Social Democrats, and had many members who were devotees of Max Schactman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... A Marxist theorist. Also good reading.
So they split away during the 1970's, and started moving to a sort of faux conservatism.
Then came the 1990's. The neocons were seriously pissed off at the First George Bush. They really wanted to take out Saddam Hussein, and run the country
Then we had the Wolfowitz Doctrine written in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The outcry was pretty loud, with the doctrine sounding like a new American Imperialism - it was rewritten, but still had the basics of the neocon's pre-emptive war and global outlook.
Interestingly and oddly enough, in the late 90's Irving Kristol, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... named the "Godfather of NeoConservatism, and member of the so called "New York Intellectuals" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., yup a Trotskyist group, started rejecting evolution and Darwinism. Weird. And oddly enough so did the Stalinist Soviets, who preferred Lysenkoism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Some folks think that their war on evolution might have just been a lie to attract fundamentalist Christians - who knows?
In 1998 They published an open letter to Bill Clinton urging an Iraq war. They finally got their way in 2002, with the "Bush Doctrine" after which we promptly went in and invaded a country that didn't have a thing to do with 9/11.
But the NeoCons, prevailed in getting Bush to adopt much of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. An important part of the Bush Doctrine was that they used the word "pre-emptive" rather than preventative, which would be in direct violation of Geneva conventions.
But as the 1992 Wolfowitz report Defense Planning Guidance puts it:
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."
Whoa, that's a tad nasty. Sounds like everlasting war. Sounds like making the entire world your enemy. That really hasn't worked out too well in the past. Anyhow, I've given you a shitload to read. As a moderate to paleoconservative, I do believe that Trotskyites had grabbed power in the Republican party, that they have major underpinni