'Neocon' Becomes a Confusing Code Word

The Tallahassee Democrat ^ | May 2, 2003 | Suzanne Fields

[SunStar]

No....I am referring to the party which controls them which is the "same" party which ruled Poland under an iron heal for decades and the *same* party which is currently a member of the Socialist International. By the logic of your "guilt by association" response, I guess we can assume you admire these surrender monkey, opportunist unrepentant socialists.

You are behaving in the same manner you railed against me for. You have not addresses the substance of my posts. Please re-read and look at the examples I listed.

[SunStar]

Some of us prefer fact-based argument rather the smears.

Really? Like your "Al Sharpton" insults? What facts have you listed on this thread?

[SunStar]

You apparently can not believe that anyone who disagrees with you is even a human being!

Is that an example of your "fact-based" approach, or an example of how you don't attack in your posts?

[wardaddy]

Neither of those defintions are appropriate and they diminish all of us.

Btw...I realize you didn't start it.

[quidnunc]

Asneditor wrote: ("And don't give me the Crusades BS") Why? it's true! If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Quote from my reply #12 above:

The Crusades weren't "perpetrated", they were Europe's reaction to Islamic expansionism.

Don't forget, until it was overrun by the Muslims the Holy Land was in large part Christian.

Furthermore, Europe itself was in danger of being overrun.

When it comes to the Crusades, the West has no need to apologize.

It is unreasonable to judge the actions of the 10th century Crusaders by modern standards of morality.

Since that time Cristianity went through the Enlightenment and the Reformation and consequently Christians don't generally act like the Crusaders of the First Crusade anymore..

The same can't be said of the Mohammedans.

[SunStar]

Neither of those defintions are appropriate and they diminish all of us.

Btw...I realize you didn't start it.

Correct. The truth lies somewhere in the middle of each description. I've been called "statist" on the paleocon boards, as well as "jew-lover"...

[Chipata]

"The Crusades weren't "perpetrated", they were Europe's reaction to Islamic expansionism. Don't forget, until it was overrun by the Muslims the Holy Land was in large part Christian. Furthermore, Europe itself was in danger of being overrun. When it comes to the Crusades, the West has no need to apologize."

And you imagine that the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were murdered in cold blood in a genocide unmatched until the Holocaust was quite legitimate?

To evade the fact that Christianity was responsible for over two thousand years for the most terrible acts of barbarism against the Jewish people makes you just as guitly as the murderers themselves. You sound not very different from the apologists for 9/11.

[wardaddy]

A chickenhawk is a gay man who preys on post pubescent boys or teens.....what most of the accused priests were guilty of.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I have no interest in addressing the substance of arguments of anyone (as part of these arguments) who indiscriminately brands sincere men and women of principle as antisemites. If you want people to address the substance of your argument, stop emulating Al Sharpton..then you might start making headway.

[billbears]

Neo-con - A liberal one-world chickenhawk posing as a conservative.

Paleo-con - A former KKK and current anti-semite posing as a super patriot.

How cute. And how wrong.

Neo-con- One willing to sell out all conservative ideals to get into power. Once into power, the ability to continue to sell out conservatism by deeds and actions that even 15 years ago would be called for what it was, liberal. All the while using cute catch phrases to maintain the voting base

Paleo-con- A conservative who believes and remembers the powers the Constitution gives to the federal government. None of which include powers such as found in the Patriot Act, nationalized healthcare, anti-2nd Amendment bills, etc. The Old Right. Does not believe in foreign aid to everyone everywhere

And considering I am not a former KKK member or an anti-semite, your definition is far off base

[Chipata]

How odd
Of God
To choose
The Jews

Yet not so odd
As those who choose
A Jewish G-d
Yet Spurn the Jews

[Austin Willard Wright]

Since your "fact based approach" is predicated on calling others antisemites, including a principled man like Ron Paul sans any evidence, then it is hard to come to any other conclusion

[Kenny Bunk]

POV understood.

Here's the problem, the Republican Leadership etc, developed the theory that they must buy into the systemic social programs (and politically correct thought processes)... just be better at running them than the Democrats (which fortunately ain't that hard). And being oh-so-politically-correct is important if you want the ladies' vote.

This being a two-party system, they'll get the vote of people like me, because they are clearly much the lesser of two evils domestically, and clearly superior internationally.

[rb22982]

Ron Paul is definately not a paleo-conservative. Him and Buchannon would bump heads on many major issues including but not limited to: free trade, borders, drugs, and using tax dollars to enforce moral code beyond protection of citizens from harm of others.

[Chipata]

"I have no interest in addressing the substance of arguments of anyone (as part of these arguments) who indiscriminately brands sincere men and women of principle as antisemites"

Hitler and Stalin were men of principle. It just so happens that the principles they espoused were those of the devil.

[T'wit]

See (and this goes for all in this discussion), definitions have changed. Are changing before our eyes. Paleocons are LOGICALLY what I think the SHOULD be, i.e., the conservative movement before neo-cons arrived. BUT, by current usage, "paleocon" is being applied to a mixed batch of libertarians (Ron Paul, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard), populists (Pat Buchanan), indefinable but kind of fun (Taki) and nutcakes (David Duke -- and what has he ever had to do with conservatism?). Not one of those people is a paleo by MY definition, though Sobran, Francis and Buchanan all used to be once upon a time.

That's what I set out to say: we have a semantic problem. These labels are being used (or misused) in different ways so we aren't communicating. David Frum muddied the waters but good.

I am out of time to discuss this for now... Carry on :-)

[rb22982]

No, I admire President Bush and his doctrines. You probably prefer Buchanan's worldview.

Most libertarians I know would prefer Bush over Buchanan, including yours truly. I still am not sure why you include Ron Paul in that group.

[Chipata]

"100% Aryan here, by the way."

Unless you are a follow of Hitler this term is, except in a linguistic sense, a nonsense. I assume you mean that you are of German origin.

[Chipata]

"It is unreasonable to judge the actions of the 10th century Crusaders by modern standards of morality"

The excuse of evil men throughout the ages.

[wardaddy]

Well said...as usual.