I’m saying that Palin has done the right thing by moving away from Neocon.
Someone proposed that Palin was not tied to any intellectual political movement.
I pointed out that Palin was tied to neocons, and then I pointed out that she fired her neocons, and hired realists.
And I praise her for doing that.
I’m not debating what is, and what is not neocon.
Randy S. is considered neocon. And Randy S. is no longer on team Palin.
You seem to want to discuss something else.
I’m just pointing out that Randy S. is considered neocon. That is what people believe.
And her new advisors are considered realist. That is what people believe.
You aren’t arguing with me, you’re arguing with everybody.
There is NO such thing as a neo-con. It is a Treason Media MYTH. Nor was Palin ever any such thing. I do not care what that silly little article claims it is irrelevant to anything real.
Of course, I am not interesting in discussing this MYTH particularly when neo-con is not defined.
No, “everybody” is not using this fraudulent title which NEVER applied to Palin or anyone anyone ever heard of. Palin has changed NOTHING about her philosophy.
A “realist” is not a school of thought opposed to a “neo-con” either. Why are you insisting on pushing this crap? Why do you refuse to discuss what it is supposed to mean? If you bring up something you have to be able to discuss and tell people what it is supposed to mean. Just quoting some obscure hack is not sufficient.
Where did your erroneous idea that she was “tied” to neo-cons come from?
Randy S. has never been of interest to anyone not even the tiny number who has heard of him. The cleaning lady is more significant. His leaving is as important as her getting rid of the old cleaning lady and hiring another.