http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushcancer.jpg

So is the cancer consuming Bush, or does it come from Bush as well? :bugeye:

--Long Live the Female Messiah. (http://www.pinkeye.se)

I had the same question if it was on or from.

The more immediate concern is that we cut it out; we can study the bloody tumor later.

I thought this was Bush cancer?
http://www.internetweekly.org/images/bush_cancer.jpg

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_precious.jpg
Poor bastard, it's fully metastasizing.

What the hell is a Neocon supposed to be?

This political group supported a militant anticommunism, minimal social welfare (to the consternation of extreme free-market libertarians), and sympathy with a traditionalist agenda. It feuded with traditional right-wing Republicans, such as William F. Buckley and the nativist, protectionist, isolationists once represented by ex-Republican Pat Buchanan, separated them from the old conservatives.

You might try searching Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) or Google (http://www.google.com/) for terms.

As Wikipedia notes, "Neocon" is a term of confusing origin, and only gets more confusing with overusage, like "liberal" and "it", unto becoming magniloquent rectalgia (there, you can try them out).

Cheers!

So the Neocon's were a group, and the word Neocon is now used as a description for conservative parties? Right?

Almost, "Neocon" describes a faction within the Republican Party, presently dominant from the White House, whose agenda differs considerably from the Republican center. From the neoconservative perspective, Republicans were mostly expected to align with a new direction. Now the Republican center, however, is beginning to have second thoughts about neoconservative foreign adventurism, spending, and narrowing religious algnment. This rift is only now beginning become widely apparent, and in the end there are going to be many sore feelings within the GOP (Republican/Grand Ole Party) because the neoconservatives are not serving core Republican interests.

While this could be considered a Cancer on the Presidency, I think it's a subject for another thread, if you wish to start one.

Now the Republican center, however, is beginning to have second thoughts about neoconservative foreign adventurism, spending, and narrowing religious algnment. This rift is only now beginning become widely apparent, and in the end there are going to be many sore feelings within the GOP (Republican/Grand Ole Party) because the neoconservatives are not serving core Republican interests.

The Libertarian Party has gained a lot of new members precipitated by the GOP's new paradigm as well.

I stopped calling myself a Republican in the mid-1990s when they started becoming almost as socialist as the Democrats.

socialist republicans... is that possible?

Well, in worse circumstances we've witnessed the rise of National Socialists. Certainly the far right-wing movements are susceptable to fixation on authoritarianism, corporate nationalism, and other experiments with central planning.

Now that things have metastasised further, this could be an interesting thread. Or not. I am willing to discuss.

If my memory serves me right the term "A cancer on the presidency was first used by John Dean during the water gate scandal. Dean at first was Nixons council, but ended up testifying aginst him. There is currently a book available written by Dean using the term as it applies to Bush. click "more" in the link to read excerpts from the book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/031600023X/commondreams-20/ref%3Dnosim/102-2882713-6468140

You know that this forum is supposed to be for discussion and not meaningless slander?

If you follow the link, you will find that referring to Dean's book is topical, meaningful, and certainly not slanderous. The many parallels and even connections between the present and Nixon Administrations are reasonable to contemplate, both regarding dometic and foreign policy. Such a reference is an excellent launching point for sincere discussion. Why not read Part I of the Preface before dismissing the offering justiceusa made for something to reflect on- No need to agree, just have the courage to examine and respond.

You know that this forum is supposed to be for discussion and not meaningless slander?

It's only slander if it isn't true :/ Also, this is written so it'd be lible.

I'll have to agree with Stokes on this one. The GOP is hardly "conservative".

Pertaining to the "Amazon" link above, all eight pages of the preface can be read by clicking the top "more" then on the arrow on the side bar to adnvance the pages. I recomend it if you want to get a real factual glimpse into the beginnings of the Bush disinformation machine.