The neocon moment is over

Any label or term can be turned into an insult. Neocon doesn't have that distintion by itself.

It does need to stop, but so does all the labeling. Just because something can be "explained" doesn't mean when people use it they don't hurl it around like an insult. All you have to do is go back over the politics section of this site to see that. If your goal is to get the name calling or labeling to stop, then it should start with neocon, but should include all labels.

Jamie

 

Good stuff, Jamie.

 

Umm...without labels how do you propose we describe these political ideologies? Should we go the Prince route and assign a symbol to them?

 

I disagree that the neocon moment is over. We will be involved in a quagmire in Iran before Bush leaves office. And for the record, neocons are not true conservatives. Theirs is a global agenda which is succeeding quite well so far.

 

We could have the people who use the term man up & explain themselves. Folks aren't so against being called "liberal", or "conservative". But neocon is always used in a negative way, like in L.E.'s, well, whatever that was.

 

...and quite likely a quagmire at home when the next geological, meteorological, economical or terror-illogical event hits.

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

 

I'm not a big fan of being called a liberal but I have been called this a number of times because I do not support neoconservative policies. While I may take offense at the term, I do not desire that the term be eliminated but would prefer that people would get educated about all the terms so they understand what they are saying. Sticks and stones etc.

 

Aw c'mon Rufus, if you were called a liberal, you would consider the source. Nobody who knows anything at all would call you a liberal. But the term "neocon" has lost any meaning at all, and it comes at me from people I otherwise respect.

 

Well, I did consider the sources and moved on I know this is a tricky issue because the policies bleed across the labels. What philosophies do you believe you are conservative on and what are the causes that you feel people call you neoconservative over?

 

Curtis,

That means you are stupid and easily misled, or led , whatever the case may be.

It is no wonder you don't like being called a neocon. Most people that throw the label around actually mean it as an insult despite their protestations.

 

double posted

 

I don't know whether it's over or not.

No one has yet been able to tell us what it is.:BangHead:

 

Low taxes, elimination of federal state watchdog departments, elimination of the department of education, the I.R.S., the E.P.A., autonimity for churches, tax breaks for business starters, elimination of welfare, a return to individual liberty & personal responsibility, no gun restrictions, disavowing & dismantling the U.N. & NATO, secure borders...North and South, tax breaks for private schools, and for those who home school, abortion returned to state's legislators, no internet ploice, no hate crimes, for starters.

People may call me a neocon, because I believe God wants us to help where we can, we should try and stop genocide, and we should try and eliminate tyrants, especially when they threaten other nations, and I stand by israel, 'cuz in '67, they occupied no land but their own, but were attacked on several fronts, and the land they took was fair game. I guess that's what it's all about, ain't it ? I'm not putting them above the U.S., but I think they deserve our help. And I base that on Christ's own words in the end of Matthew 25, and in the O/T, like Ezekiel 33. (I'm pretty sure yer not gonna go all tragic_pizza on me)

 

Based on your statements, in my humble discernment, I would consider you to be more conservative than neoconservative. However, I would maintain that the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, likely Iran and anywhere else the U.S. is trying to be globo-cop / empire builder is a neconservative / PNAC policy, though these policies and actions preceded PNAC as demonstrated by our military presence in 150+ of 190 (est) and the regime changing that occurred prior to W.

How 'bout we bequeath you Conservative with a twist of Neocon?

 

:laugh: You do crack me up. Now if you could put a little Monty Python on it.

Hey, have a nice holiday weekend. Remember all of us poor slobs who put the uniform on, for years upon years. We did it for you, Rufus. You too, Poncho. :wavey:

And stay safe on the roads. The only computin' I expect to do until Tuesday is checking the baseball scores on the wife's blackberry.

 

I think in the beginning we pretty much all supported the overthrow of Saddam, because we were led to believe that they had weapons of mass destruction and were working to get those wmd's into the hands of Al Qaida who was determined to use them on US soil.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html

Later on, we find out that Saddam had no WMD's, no ties to Al Qaida... is spreading democracy a valid reason to go to war? Were the other reasons, the reasons we supported the invasion in the first place, just the noble lie?

 

Ron Paul explained neo-conservatism pretty well a few years ago:

www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

 

I'm pretty sure that neither Sean Hannity nor Rush Limbaugh can do one thing to "implement" any political ideology, as neither has any elected or appointed political office. an they "influence" voters? Absolutely, and to a good degree. And the voters can elect those whom they think will do a particular thing. But only those actually in Government, such as President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, and Messers Wolfowitz, and Rove can "implement" anything in that regard.

Just for clarification.

Ed

 

Limbaugh claims that he can singlehandedly pick the GOP nominee for president if he chooses to do so.