Is Rudy Guiliani a Neo-Con????

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

What should we call murder happy lying pigs then? What should we call these people who claim to be part of the christian religion of peace, yet turn around and claim god wants us to bomb 3rd world nations?

What do we call these worthless wastes of space?. Since they claim to be conservative, yet they don't actually want peace and stability like the conservatives I know, we need a name to separate them from their better half. They're giving real conservatives a bad image. Not just social conservatives (which I don't care much for), but fiscal conservatives, too. These types of people are economical and social disasters.

I do agree with you about one thing... When I say "neo-con" I feel like I'm loosing a battle. You know, the battle to attempt to not label or generalize about people for easier identification. It's almost like how these "neo-cons" and their supporters call liberals "moon-bats". It's not fair, not that these "neo-cons" deserve any kind of respect, but I feel like I'm letting other people down.

Then again, we get back to "how do we describe them?". How do we identify one of these fake human beings? Should we just call them exactly what they are, using literal descriptions? Or do we save our breath and give them a nasty demeaning name? It kind of saves time and energy, time and energy that could be spent on better people.

So tell us then. What exactly are the core differences, in your opinion, between conservatives and liberals? Christianity isnt an excuse. Many Dems publicly admit and defend their faith. It cant be due to sending troops to harms way-EVERY president and congress has done that. It cant be lying...Democrats are just as guilty.

So tell us? Whats the difference? I know what I think, but with your hatred of the right, I'd like to know-

If you've read anything I've written in the past, you'll know I am no easier on democrats than republicans. I hate both parties, period. I am a straight up (foaming a the mouth, according to Genx87) opponent of the entire two party system, and any of it's supporters.

I am speaking of conservatism, and liberalism, not political parties. Also, when you say "conservative" you have to specify which subject said person is actually "conservative" on. Is is social issues or fiscal issues? Personally, I like fiscal conservatives and social liberalism.

However, I also DON'T like when people lie to start wars. I don't like narrow minded people who want any kind of power. I don't like advocates of "tradition", "god and country" and "faith" (when I say advocates, I mean people who push it on others. I have no qualms with respectful social conservatives, so long as they're not trying to change MY life according to THEIR views). Those are back-wards ideals and are easily used (especially in this day and age, look at the fake conservative party we have in office, or the fake islamic parties who advocate suicidal attacks on "infidels") to warp the peoples minds and to make them follow asinine orders.

When I personally have called a person "neo-con" in the past, I was saying short hand: "They claim to be christian and patriotic, but they're actually hateful warmongering traitors to the american process and progress we have worked so hard to build up in past years. They're not spreading hope and fair democracy, they're spreading their political and military boundaries to create unrest and to further the gap between themselves and 'us'. 'Us' being anyone who disagrees. They're not in it for the betterment of society, they're in it for profit and political and power gains, they're in it for themselves. They're monsters."

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

QFT. :thumbsup:

QFL (QUOTED FOR LIES). :thumbsdown:
When you claim wiki has information that supports YOUR post YOU REALLY SHOULD ACTUALLY GO TO WIKI AND READ IT. SINCE IN THIS CASE YOU ARE 100 PERCENT WRONG.

WIKI:
there are notable differences between neoconservative and traditional or "paleoconservative" views. In particular, neoconservatives disagree with the nativist, protectionist, and non-interventionist foreign policy rooted in American history and once exemplified by the ex-Republican "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan. As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which also sometimes exhibits a non-interventionist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad. Neoconservatives are strong believers in democratic peace theory.

The support of neoconservatives for the civil rights movement also marked it off from traditional conservatism.[10][7]

Neoconservatives also differ with the traditional "pragmatic" approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, which emphasized pragmatic accommodation with dictators; peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control; détente and containment?rather than rollback?of the Soviet Union; and the initiation of the process that led to ties between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the United States.

ETC.
ETC.
ETC.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

What should we call murder happy lying pigs then? What should we call these people who claim to be part of the christian religion of peace, yet turn around and claim god wants us to bomb 3rd world nations?

What do we call these worthless wastes of space?. Since they claim to be conservative, yet they don't actually want peace and stability like the conservatives I know, we need a name to separate them from their better half. They're giving real conservatives a bad image. Not just social conservatives (which I don't care much for), but fiscal conservatives, too. These types of people are economical and social disasters.

I do agree with you about one thing... When I say "neo-con" I feel like I'm loosing a battle. You know, the battle to attempt to not label or generalize about people for easier identification. It's almost like how these "neo-cons" and their supporters call liberals "moon-bats". It's not fair, not that these "neo-cons" deserve any kind of respect, but I feel like I'm letting other people down.

Then again, we get back to "how do we describe them?". How do we identify one of these fake human beings? Should we just call them exactly what they are, using literal descriptions? Or do we save our breath and give them a nasty demeaning name? It kind of saves time and energy, time and energy that could be spent on better people.

frothing at the mouth spotted.

I spot denial, and not in his post.

You wouldnt know denial if it but you on the ass and it does on a daily basis.

 

[dahunan]

He preaches Terrorism like nobodys business. . he is a king of fear

 

[Fern]

It might first be helpful to start with a definition of neocon.

According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism: a low tax, pro-growth and less risk-averse approach to economics; a less libertarian approach to domestic affairs than some other conservatives; and an idealist, expansive foreign policy.[15] Kristol also claims three distinctive aspects of neoconservatism from previous forms of conservatism: a forward-looking approach drawn from their liberal heritage, rather than the reactionary and dour approach of previous conservatives; a meliorative outlook, proposing alternate reforms rather than simply attacking social liberal reforms; taking philosophical or ideological ideas very seriously.[16]

This definition would seem to include virtually all conservatives. The only two conservative I can think who differ are Pat Buchanon for his isolationism policy (otherwise he arguable fits the rest of the definition), and Ron Paul for libertarian leanings on domestic issues.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

Fern, when you quote Irving Kristol with------a low tax, pro-growth and less risk-averse approach to economics.

You are talking a contradiction in terms. Basically saying a spend and borrow strategy that can last only last a limited time as GHB found out. Eventually the debt
builds up and their merry go round stops is not sound economic policy.

Yes you can quote Irving Kristol who tries to put own beautiful lip stick on a pig, but us realists have a different definition of an ugly boogie men that
neo cons actually are. And no, they have almost no resemblance to the traditional conservative that used to make up the GOP. And I would maintain that neocons
actually hijacked the GOP and perverted what used to be an respected American institution.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

QFT. :thumbsup:

QFL (QUOTED FOR LIES). :thumbsdown:
When you claim wiki has information that supports YOUR post YOU REALLY SHOULD ACTUALLY GO TO WIKI AND READ IT. SINCE IN THIS CASE YOU ARE 100 PERCENT WRONG.

WIKI:
there are notable differences between neoconservative and traditional or "paleoconservative" views. In particular, neoconservatives disagree with the nativist, protectionist, and non-interventionist foreign policy rooted in American history and once exemplified by the ex-Republican "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan. As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which also sometimes exhibits a non-interventionist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad. Neoconservatives are strong believers in democratic peace theory.

The support of neoconservatives for the civil rights movement also marked it off from traditional conservatism.[10][7]

Neoconservatives also differ with the traditional "pragmatic" approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, which emphasized pragmatic accommodation with dictators; peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control; détente and containment?rather than rollback?of the Soviet Union; and the initiation of the process that led to ties between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the United States.

ETC.
ETC.
ETC.

Per wiki, under neoconservatism, it says:

According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism: a low tax, pro-growth and less risk-averse approach to economics

That describes what the conservatives try to attain. No different. That is the core.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

QFT. :thumbsup:

Actually didn't they originally call themselves neocon?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Fern, when you quote Irving Kristol with------a low tax, pro-growth and less risk-averse approach to economics.

You are talking a contradiction in terms. Basically saying a spend and borrow strategy that can last only last a limited time as GHB found out. Eventually the debt
builds up and their merry go round stops is not sound economic policy.

Yes you can quote Irving Kristol who tries to put own beautiful lip stick on a pig, but us realists have a different definition of an ugly boogie men that
neo cons actually are. And no, they have almost no resemblance to the traditional conservative that used to make up the GOP. And I would maintain that neocons
actually hijacked the GOP and perverted what used to be an respected American institution.

Th quote is from Wiki. If we can't agree upon the definition of what a neocon is, we can't have reasonable discussion of whether Rudy is one.

I don't think "a low tax, pro-growth and less risk-averse approach to economics" is inherently contradictory as you asert. There is no "high spend" mentioned in taht critera/definition. Unfortunately that's what GWB allowed to occur in the Repub controlled Congress.

Fern

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Fern, when you quote Irving Kristol with------a low tax, pro-growth and less risk-averse approach to economics.

You are talking a contradiction in terms. Basically saying a spend and borrow strategy that can last only last a limited time as GHB found out. Eventually the debt
builds up and their merry go round stops is not sound economic policy.

Yes you can quote Irving Kristol who tries to put own beautiful lip stick on a pig, but us realists have a different definition of an ugly boogie men that
neo cons actually are. And no, they have almost no resemblance to the traditional conservative that used to make up the GOP. And I would maintain that neocons
actually hijacked the GOP and perverted what used to be an respected American institution.

Th quote is from Wiki. If we can't agree upon the definition of what a neocon is, we can't have reasonable discussion of whether Rudy is one.

I don't think "a low tax, pro-growth and less risk-averse approach to economics" is inherently contradictory as you asert. There is no "high spend" mentioned in taht critera/definition. Unfortunately that's what GWB allowed to occur in the Repub controlled Congress.
Fern

I guess he isnt one then by definition *shrug* Who the hell cares what his label is anyway? Like I said it makes liberals feeeeelllll gooood to call conservatives that. It has less teeth than a 98 year old grandma with a bad case of plaque.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

What should we call murder happy lying pigs then? What should we call these people who claim to be part of the christian religion of peace, yet turn around and claim god wants us to bomb 3rd world nations?

What do we call these worthless wastes of space?. Since they claim to be conservative, yet they don't actually want peace and stability like the conservatives I know, we need a name to separate them from their better half. They're giving real conservatives a bad image. Not just social conservatives (which I don't care much for), but fiscal conservatives, too. These types of people are economical and social disasters.

I do agree with you about one thing... When I say "neo-con" I feel like I'm loosing a battle. You know, the battle to attempt to not label or generalize about people for easier identification. It's almost like how these "neo-cons" and their supporters call liberals "moon-bats". It's not fair, not that these "neo-cons" deserve any kind of respect, but I feel like I'm letting other people down.

Then again, we get back to "how do we describe them?". How do we identify one of these fake human beings? Should we just call them exactly what they are, using literal descriptions? Or do we save our breath and give them a nasty demeaning name? It kind of saves time and energy, time and energy that could be spent on better people.

frothing at the mouth spotted.

I spot denial, and not in his post.

You wouldnt know denial if it but you on the ass and it does on a daily basis.

You're not good at this stuff.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

QFT. :thumbsup:

QFL (QUOTED FOR LIES). :thumbsdown:
When you claim wiki has information that supports YOUR post YOU REALLY SHOULD ACTUALLY GO TO WIKI AND READ IT. SINCE IN THIS CASE YOU ARE 100 PERCENT WRONG.

WIKI:
there are notable differences between neoconservative and traditional or "paleoconservative" views. In particular, neoconservatives disagree with the nativist, protectionist, and non-interventionist foreign policy rooted in American history and once exemplified by the ex-Republican "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan. As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which also sometimes exhibits a non-interventionist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad. Neoconservatives are strong believers in democratic peace theory.

The support of neoconservatives for the civil rights movement also marked it off from traditional conservatism.[10][7]

Neoconservatives also differ with the traditional "pragmatic" approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, which emphasized pragmatic accommodation with dictators; peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control; détente and containment?rather than rollback?of the Soviet Union; and the initiation of the process that led to ties between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the United States.

ETC.
ETC.
ETC.

Per wiki, under neoconservatism, it says:

According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism: a low tax, pro-growth and less risk-averse approach to economics

That describes what the conservatives try to attain. No different. That is the core.

NO. Not as per wiki, as per Irving Kristol isn not the same as per Wiki.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

What should we call murder happy lying pigs then? What should we call these people who claim to be part of the christian religion of peace, yet turn around and claim god wants us to bomb 3rd world nations?

What do we call these worthless wastes of space?. Since they claim to be conservative, yet they don't actually want peace and stability like the conservatives I know, we need a name to separate them from their better half. They're giving real conservatives a bad image. Not just social conservatives (which I don't care much for), but fiscal conservatives, too. These types of people are economical and social disasters.

I do agree with you about one thing... When I say "neo-con" I feel like I'm loosing a battle. You know, the battle to attempt to not label or generalize about people for easier identification. It's almost like how these "neo-cons" and their supporters call liberals "moon-bats". It's not fair, not that these "neo-cons" deserve any kind of respect, but I feel like I'm letting other people down.

Then again, we get back to "how do we describe them?". How do we identify one of these fake human beings? Should we just call them exactly what they are, using literal descriptions? Or do we save our breath and give them a nasty demeaning name? It kind of saves time and energy, time and energy that could be spent on better people.

frothing at the mouth spotted.

I spot denial, and not in his post.

You wouldnt know denial if it but you on the ass and it does on a daily basis.

You're not good at this stuff.

What stuff? Trolling? I admit in that dept you win.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure if he is a neo-con but it sure appears he is a NE liberal. Why the republicans are trying to shove a NE liberal down our throats is beyond me. Havent they learned from the democrats?

Yep. I'll never vote for him. I don't want a RINO.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dahunan
He preaches Terrorism like nobodys business. . he is a king of fear

And yet Hillary runs the first 9/11 ad with her appearing in a dust mask... Imagine that!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I guess he isnt one then by definition *shrug* Who the hell cares what his label is anyway? Like I said it makes liberals feeeeelllll gooood to call conservatives that. It has less teeth than a 98 year old grandma with a bad case of plaque.

Exactly. Also, you will find most "Neo-Cons" don't mind the label. Liberals, on the other hand, seem to run from it. Constantly.

 

[BoberFett]

Why is the OP so obsessed with labels? Labels are for shallow minds. Oh, guess I just answered my own question.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

Luring the public to liberally attack other nations is not conservative. Conservatives conserve military force.

Increasing the size and scope of government and the use of authority is not conservative. Conservatives conserve the size of government and interference of personal liberties.

Ignoring the constitution and rewriting history for political gain is not conservative. Conservatives conserve and protect the constitution.

Every Republican candidate other than Ron Paul is a liberal.

Neo-cons are a name that we give to the liberal ideology that has it's roots from a pro-war 1950s branch of the Democratic party. They believe in misleading the public. They believe in elitism, increasing the size of government. They believe in restructuring the Middle East to preserve oil trade.

They're liberals. Not liberal in the sense of classical liberalism or present-day democrats. But it sure as hell isn't conservative.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yep, he's a neocon, and he sucks.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

What should we call murder happy lying pigs then? What should we call these people who claim to be part of the christian religion of peace, yet turn around and claim god wants us to bomb 3rd world nations?

What do we call these worthless wastes of space?. Since they claim to be conservative, yet they don't actually want peace and stability like the conservatives I know, we need a name to separate them from their better half. They're giving real conservatives a bad image. Not just social conservatives (which I don't care much for), but fiscal conservatives, too. These types of people are economical and social disasters.

I do agree with you about one thing... When I say "neo-con" I feel like I'm loosing a battle. You know, the battle to attempt to not label or generalize about people for easier identification. It's almost like how these "neo-cons" and their supporters call liberals "moon-bats". It's not fair, not that these "neo-cons" deserve any kind of respect, but I feel like I'm letting other people down.

Then again, we get back to "how do we describe them?". How do we identify one of these fake human beings? Should we just call them exactly what they are, using literal descriptions? Or do we save our breath and give them a nasty demeaning name? It kind of saves time and energy, time and energy that could be spent on better people.

frothing at the mouth spotted.

I spot denial, and not in his post.

You wouldnt know denial if it but you on the ass and it does on a daily basis.

You're not good at this stuff.

What stuff? Trolling? I admit in that dept you win.

^ No, this stuff.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

Luring the public to liberally attack other nations is not conservative. Conservatives conserve military force.

Increasing the size and scope of government and the use of authority is not conservative. Conservatives conserve the size of government and interference of personal liberties.

Ignoring the constitution and rewriting history for political gain is not conservative. Conservatives conserve and protect the constitution.

Every Republican candidate other than Ron Paul is a liberal.

Neo-cons are a name that we give to the liberal ideology that has it's roots from a pro-war 1950s branch of the Democratic party. They believe in misleading the public. They believe in elitism, increasing the size of government. They believe in restructuring the Middle East to preserve oil trade.

They're liberals. Not liberal in the sense of classical liberalism or present-day democrats. But it sure as hell isn't conservative.

Great paragraph has been bolded. The primary distinguishing features of neoconservatives are a belief in their own exceptionalism and immunity from the rules and morals which "keep society in line," and the belief in the "noble lie." Free market capitalism and aggressive idealistic foreign policy are also features, but shared by other ideologies. The real unique trait is the philosophy of using cultural values and morals (religion, etc.) which they don't necessarily believe in, to push for their goals. Because of this elitist intellectual status, I don't know if anyone on this board could actually be a "neo-con" in the truest sense, unless they are some policy maker or think tank fellow. The term is definitely overused.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I guess he isnt one then by definition *shrug* Who the hell cares what his label is anyway? Like I said it makes liberals feeeeelllll gooood to call conservatives that. It has less teeth than a 98 year old grandma with a bad case of plaque.

Exactly. Also, you will find most "Neo-Cons" don't mind the label. Liberals, on the other hand, seem to run from it. Constantly.

I can't remember the last Pabster post that wasn't wrong or a lie.

I see a lot of people who agree with the neocon positions complain about the label, but more importantly, I am a proud liberal. Paul Krugman just put out an excellent book the right-wing cultists won't read called "The Conscience of a Liberal". Yes, there have been some periods the word was demonized and there has been some avoidance of it by some liberals, but as usual Pabster gets it wrong, in this case by gross exaggeration.

Now, I'm not '100%' liberal; I agree with the 'real' conservatives on some areas and disagree with most liberals on a few, but generally, I'm proudly liberal.

Next?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

Luring the public to liberally attack other nations is not conservative. Conservatives conserve military force.

Increasing the size and scope of government and the use of authority is not conservative. Conservatives conserve the size of government and interference of personal liberties.

Ignoring the constitution and rewriting history for political gain is not conservative. Conservatives conserve and protect the constitution.

Every Republican candidate other than Ron Paul is a liberal.

Neo-cons are a name that we give to the liberal ideology that has it's roots from a pro-war 1950s branch of the Democratic party. They believe in misleading the public. They believe in elitism, increasing the size of government. They believe in restructuring the Middle East to preserve oil trade.

They're liberals. Not liberal in the sense of classical liberalism or present-day democrats. But it sure as hell isn't conservative.

Great paragraph has been bolded. The primary distinguishing features of neoconservatives are a belief in their own exceptionalism and immunity from the rules and morals which "keep society in line," and the belief in the "noble lie." Free market capitalism and aggressive idealistic foreign policy are also features, but shared by other ideologies. The real unique trait is the philosophy of using cultural values and morals (religion, etc.) which they don't necessarily believe in, to push for their goals. Because of this elitist intellectual status, I don't know if anyone on this board could actually be a "neo-con" in the truest sense, unless they are some policy maker or think tank fellow. The term is definitely overused.

While the current neocon crop has it especially bad, it's nothing new - it's more about power that some consider themselves 'above the rules'.

Consider, for example, FDR's misleading the nation in the election for his third term, where he ran on a platform that he was against getting into WWII. A 'noble lie'.

Had he not run, we may well have had isolationist President Joseph Kennedy (father of John), who had many talents, but was not too good on WWII.

 

[blackangst1]

ugh. OK he's a neocon. He's a liberal. He's a *****. He's a GWB clone.

Whatever. Does it mean anything? Not really.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Why argue over a wiki article when you can get it straight from the horse's mouth?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...0/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

In terms of foreign policy, Rudy is most assuredly a neocon.

And for those who don't know the origin of the "neo-" prefix, it's because these guys and their spiritual mentor Leo Strauss were once Democrats, discredited when their rule the world trotskyite vision failed in Vietnam. So they found a new home by adapting their rhetoric to the ravings of the Right.

Same whore, different dress...

And I gotta love the reference to Rudy's "heroics" wrt 9/11- what did he do that was "heroic", anyway? Pose, and go to Yankees games?