Featured Is neo-conservatism extinct?

Neoconism wasn't fully developed yet. Kennnedy helped set the standard. :thumbs:

Tax cuts. What liberal does that? Only one. The neocon one. Kennedy.

Hmm... Sounds more like a neocon than a liberal.

Really? What self respecting liberal believes that?

 

Neither do the neocons.

 

That's strange because the evidence tells another story. But then judging the situation by weighing all the evidence and coming to a rational conclusion without taking sides in the false left vs right right paradigm doesn't seem to be something you are ready to do yet.

Evidently you still think of yourself as a "conservative" even though your words and attitude mirror those of a Wilsonian progressive.

 

Your definition is out dated.

Here's a more up to date and accurate definition.

Neocon

Neoconservative. Criminally insane spenders that believe in killing brown people for the new world order. Huge Orwellian government, unfathomable amounts of spending, bomb tens of thousands of people to death to rearrange the globe. Take the worst aspects of the liberal and conservative positions and combine them into one and you would have a NeoCon.

Neocons are the greatest threat to life, liberty and property this country has ever known.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Neocon

 

I'm so glad you've decided to be politically correct. The neocons are what they are. Attempting to use Webster's sterilized definition doesn't change that any.

Here's another more up to date and accurate definition.

neocon

1. Small group of politicians coming from as early as the Ford administration up to the Bush II administration.

2. Have a fake pretense about believing in smaller government. In reality believe in big spending and tax cuts for their wealthy political and business friends, hence deficit spending.

3. They fake being social conservatives, although true social conservatives believe they really care about social issues. Neocons distract the public by acting like they really care about social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and flag burning. Meanwhile they are busy conducting wars and stifling your freedom.

4. Believe in costly wars and creating boogeymen to try and make you think only they can keep you safe while they restrict your freedoms to "protect you". This is their signature issue, to help keep them in power.

5. Actually despise any types of small government advocates, Barry Goldwater, traditional live and let live conservative, and libertarians.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Neocon

You want the truth or do you want to be nice to the crazies that are responsible for way more death, destruction and chaos than all the "evil dictators" they've ousted put together?

 

Kristol Clear

A bit of neocon history.

Here . . . http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2013/05/01/kristol-clear/

 

You must still be relying on Webster's narrow watered down and sterilized definition of "neocon".

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. has been called one of the "key ideologues who are the nerve center of the Islamophobia network" and is founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, a non-profit think tank "funded mainly by U.S. defence contractors, far-right foundations, and right-wing Zionists" [1][2] Gaffney is considered to be a "neo-con" (neo-conservative).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frank_J._Gaffney,_Jr.


The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neo-conservative think tank (1997 to 2006) that had strong ties to the American Enterprise Institute. PNAC's web site said it was "established in the spring of 1997" as "a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership."

PNAC's policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocated for total global military domination. Many PNAC members held highest-level positions in the George W. Bush administration. The Project was an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3). [1]

In 2009 two of PNAC's founders, William Kristol and Robert Kagan, began what some termed "PNAC 2.0," The Foreign Policy Initiative.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. was a PNAC, original signer.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

One doesn't get any more "neocon" than that.

HILLARY CLINTON IS A NEOCON

Joe Scarborough thinks so.

There really is no debate here. Hillary Clinton is a neocon.

She’s not a Republican, so this confuses the Mika and the folks at MSNBC.

Joe revises, says she’s an “interventionist” and Chris Matthews says she’s a “centrist” on foreign policy.

Centrist means having moderate political views or policies.

So, invading Libya, killing 30,000 Libyans, turning a once relatively advanced nation (compared to the rest of Africa) into a failed state and chortling about the brutal murder of Muammar Gaddafi on national television is, for Chris Matthews at least, centrist and moderate.

Makes sense. Especially for people who think sadistic Islamists in Syria are “moderate.”

View Video Here . . . http://www.infowars.com/hillary-clinton-is-a-neocon/

 

Okay, Reagan was friends with a neocon. So? What's your point?

 

No I'm not attacking Reagan. But it looks like you're trying to misrepresent Frank Gaffney's rabid neoconservatism by associating him with Reagan.

It's the reverse of your favorite "guilt by association" fallacy. You've just turned it around 180 degrees to make it the "innocent by association" fallacy. Frank Gaffney has always been a neocon specializing in fear mongering.

Reading Reagan's words and looking at what's been going on since the neocons co opted the republican party under Bush/Cheney, Reagan was neo-conned to.

The neocons won't be happy until we're totally bankrupt, universally hated, have no liberties left and they have started WWIII (based on more of their "noble lies" of course) that might get us all killed.

Why? Because they are insane.

 

You should dismiss your watered down sterilized definition because is it out dated and inaccurate.

If Reagan was alive today he'd be appalled by the growth of government, the systematic destruction of our liberties and the absurd amount of lies and fear mongering that has gone on since the neocons co opted the republican party.

And BTW, pointing out the obvious is not "attacking" anything. It's just pointing out the obvious. These "think tanks" are full of paranoid insane minds that are addicted to war and the hefty profits it brings their corporate sponsors.

You want to know who benefits from all these "wars" look at who sponsors all the think tanks. Banks and corporations.

They are our real rulers. Presidents come and go but the policy itself always remains the same no matter which party is "in power". War, wars and more war. The only and I stress ONLY difference is the sales pitch the politicians give us. The democrats give us the "humanitarian" sales pitch, the republicans give us the "shock and awe" sales pitch but when it comes right down to brass tacks it's always the same policy of war, wars and more wars for the benefit of a few at the expense of the many.

How many times do I have to tell you? WAR IS A RACKET!