Why Neo-Conservatives Are not Real Conservatives

self

[Reagan Man]

>>>... Reagan, if I recall, was known to call upon Kristol's counsel every so often.

You are correctamundo.

>>Spitballs belong in baseball games (yes, I favour legalising the pitch - which, contrary to the mythology, is not a dangerous pitch), not political discourse.

Actually, I might agree with you about legalizing the spitball, but then some knuckleheads might want to bring back the Dead Ball Era. =^) (For those ignorant of BB history, the Dead Ball Era was pre-1920`s, sometimes labeled the pre-Ruthian Era.)

[Reagan Man]

>>>The only better one is him in a stetson...

You mean like this one, which graces my profile page?

[BluesDuke]

Actually, I might agree with you about legalizing the spitball, but then some knuckleheads might want to bring back the Dead Ball Era. =^) (For those ignorant of BB history, the Dead Ball Era was pre-1920`s, sometimes labeled the pre-Ruthian Era.)

I think you can sleep the sleep of the just without fear that legalising the spitball would lead to a movement to resurrect the dead ball era. On the other hand, I have to admit - there is something delicious (call it my anti-authoritarian streak, if you must) about knowing that somewhere in today's game there just might be a pitcher or three committing a little cheerful subterfuge.

Of course, there have been those who involved no subterfuge but proud defiance, if you consider this once said of Don Sutton: He's set such a standard of defiance that I expect him one day to throw a ball up to the plate with the bolts attached.

And, then, there was the umpire who bumped into Gaylord Perry in town one day, the day after he'd frisked the KY Kid on the mound (no evidence, alas - that frisk), told Perry about his son's Little League team and how they were getting their jocks knocked off, especially when his son pitched. "Gaylord," asked the ump, "would you teach him how you throw that thing?" (P.S. Perry obliged.)

[Reagan Man]

... somewhere in today's game there just might be a pitcher or three committing a little cheerful subterfuge.

I wouldn't doubt it for one minute.

Btw, my Dead Ball Era remark was a josh.

But could you imagine, Ty Cobb playing today, with a clean baseball in the game at all times? As opposed to, most of Cobb's playing days, when baseballs where left in the game until they were blackened with dirt and mud. Let's include Honus Wagner, Nap Lajoie and Tris Speaker in that mix, as well.

[R W Reactionairy]

"Neo-conservative litmus tests:
1. Do you agree with FDR's New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause, and all subsequent government powers/court rulings that have sprung from it?
2. There is a hypothetical election with no Democratic or third party candidates. The person who wins the Republican nomination wins the election. The candidates for nomination are Ron Paul and George Bush. Who do you vote for?
3. Would you approve of a law that forced Congress to cite a specifically enumerated constitutional power before it can pass a law? Also, apply this to every law already on the books."

Great set of criteria ... but if these are your litmus tests, what distinguishes a small "L" libertarian from a conservative?

[Cultural Jihad]

Heros of the neo-cons include Harry Truman, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Leon Trotsky ...

Leon Trotsky?! LOL! Yet another reason why 30-day wonders shouldn't be allowed to post a new thread.

[Cultural Jihad]

Noam Chomsky is a self-avowed "libertarian-socialist" so you might have a point.

[Cultural Jihad]

Perhaps so, but the fact remains he self-ascribes his ideology as "libertarian-socialism." Apparently the term "libertarian" was in common use among socialists, communists, and anarchists for decades before the LP was founded.

[FatherTorque]

Noam Chomsky is a self-avowed "libertarian-socialist" so you might have a point.

And Bush claims to be a conservative. 

[jstone78]

("....What's your distinction between Old and New Rightists?....")

This is just my opinion, and is not definitive. In my view, an Old Rightist ideology emerged as a critique of the New Deal, while New Rightists were critics of LBJ's Great Society. That differences in emphasis causes a slight difference between the two.

Old Rightists are strong defenders of individual rights, and come closest to the beliefs of classic liberals. But New Rightists are strong defenders of states' rights and strong local government. But both are virulently opposed to big government at the federal level.

The Barry Goldwater of 1964 is an example of an Old Rightist, while Paul Weyrich is a New Rightist.

[FatherTorque]

Your dog?

[TopQuark]

--A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Buchanan is a Conservative.

Buchanan is for Buchanan-first, and not much else.

I've heard once stated that the term "neo-con" was invented to exlude from the "real cons" the Jewish conservatives. You appear to prove that assertion.

It is rather pathetic to see you promulgating a libel that the Jews are "Israel-first." The same has been said about Catholics, who have been until WWII alleged to be more loyal to the Pope.

Take your bigotry somewhere else: bigots are a disgrace and a disservice to the conservative movement.

[hosepipe]

"How do you tell a Communist?
Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin" -Ronald Regan

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. Barry M. Goldwater

[TopQuark]

I referred to the specific terminology used by the previous poster, which is much in vogue on thsi web site: alleging that American Jews are "Israel-firsters," i.e., would sell out America for the interests of Israel.

From time to time it gets tiresome to deal with bigotry.

[Phillip Augustus]

No, they should be referred to as Trotskyites.