Posted on 08/12/2002 5:48:59 AM PDT by sauropod
What have we got for it? I already delineated above how W. has approved legislation that is abhorrant to any conservative i personally know.
Some choice. No political correctness here, merely an observation.
Paleo-cons and paleo-libs who fall into this trap create these silly debates over who is a Conservative and who isn't.
That said, neo-Cons seem to believe that troop movements in the Middle East is the defining issue of our time. Paleo-Cons and paleo-libs are working to build bridges to topple the current ruling elite that puts on a shell game called democracy simply to serve their permanent ruling status. We look to incorporate Southern state's right folks and embrace Reagan's efforts to restore federalism, even as we were disappointed that he allowed the permanent ruling class to continue ruling while he was in office (different folks blame the assassination attempt others believe a deal was struck when he signed Bush on to the team.)
Actually, I do own several properties. So the "original" term here is apropos.
Otherwise, fair enough.
So, see ya! And I wouldn't want to be ya.
Reagan recognized that a cold war is a war and dealt with it as a conservative would.
That really wasn't my point though. My point is it's easy to rail against neo-cons without mentioning names, then label whoever disagrees on a particular issue a "neo-con". It's like if I wrote an article criticizing "neo-confederates" who wish the south had won and there was no USA. Then I could accuse anyone who opposes any expansion of federal power of being a "neo-confed".
Yeah, 'Pod!! I mean, really!! We all know the latest bits of legislation will protect us and 10 years from now when this 'war' is over will never be used against anyone. They won't add up to one massive amount of legislation that further destroys what's left of the Republic. We'll still have our freedoms. I imagine we'll have a load of choices as to which weekly processing/checkin center we can go to. And here in NC, we even get to pick the backgrounds for our drivers' licenses, so I imagine the same will be said of the national ID cards. Yep as long as you fall in step to the state, you're going to be just fine....
that you bitch everyday about why Bush is a "sellout" when he's trying to eradicate Islamic terror that could revisit with another 9/11
Eradicating Islamic terror is one thing, further consolidation of the general government's power under more bureaucracy is another. Just because this nation is at 'war'(and I won't even go into the fact that the POTUS hasn't officially asked Congress for war except twice in the past 160 years) doesn't mean I'm supposed to close my eyes and be led blindly to the slaughter house habs. If you allow that you're not a conservative, you're a populist statist, no better than O'Reilly
And why shouldn't people be labeled. They persist in labeling us right-wingers. (And I wear that label proudly).
Who said you have to support anyone you don't agree with?
My point is that the stupid label sometimes becomes more important than the ideology behind the label. I've seen it many times on FR. Watch someone disagree with someone else on some specific issue - especially about the Republican party - and the 'neo-conservative' label is too often instantly attached to that poster, like a mark of Cain. All discussion is supposed to cease; they've been 'marked' and labled. Case closed.
It neatly avoids real discussion and puts the recipient on the defensive - over a label. Very liberal-style tactic that I hate to see. It's tempting and routine in political discussions but not very useful.
'Neo-Conservative' can mean whatever the person using the label wants it to mean. A waste of time and a cheesy tactic, in my opinion. The left does this and we can do it back when it fits ('hypocrite' is usually accurate here) but to go back and forth playing the label game with other conservatives is rather pointless.
And yes, it is a bigger threat than Islam. It is not Islamists that are putting cameras atop red lights. It is not Islamists that are insisting on evidence remaining secret. It is not Islamists that are insisting on wiretapping being done without a judge saying it is ok.
We must agree to disagree. If i suffer from a lack of perspective, then so be it. 'Pod
Have to confess that i am not familiar w/ the evidence against Milosevic. Not sure if he should be tried or not. ANd why not Croat leaders or Bosnian muslim leaders? I understand that there were atrocities on all sides. 'Pod
What I have found is that usually the poster labeled a neo-con (or something else) usually says something else that justifies the label (as have several on this thread).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.